NOUN
- + Add to Faves
- + Translate
- + Share
العربية
ä¸å›½
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€
Italiano
日本語
Português
РуÑÑкий
Español
(Redirected from Proper noun)
In linguistics, a 'noun' or 'noun substantive' is a lexical category which is defined in terms of how its members combine with other grammatical kinds of expressions. Since different languages have different inventories of grammatical categories, the definition of 'noun' will differ from language to language. In English, nouns can be defined as those morphological stems that form words which can co-occur with (in)definite articles and attributive adjectives, and function as the head of a noun phrase.
The word comes from the Latin ''nomen'' meaning "name". Word classes like nouns were first described by the Sanskrit grammarian and ancient Greeks like Dionysios Thrax, and defined in terms of their morphological properties. For example, in Ancient Greek, nouns can be inflected for grammatical case, such as dative or accusative. Verbs, on the other hand, can be inflected for tenses, such as past, present or future, while nouns cannot. Aristotle also had a notion of ''onomata'' (nouns) and ''rhemata'' (verbs) which, however, does not exactly correspond with modern notions of nouns and verbs. Nouns are words that describe person, place, thing, animal or abstract idea.[1]
Expressions of natural language will have properties at different levels. They have ''formal'' properties, like what kinds of morphological prefixes or suffixes they can take, and what kinds of other expressions they can combine with. but they also have semantic properties, i.e. properties pertaining to their meaning. The definition of nouns on the top of this page is thus a ''formal'' definition. That definition is uncontroversial, and has the advantage that it allows us to effectively distinguish nouns from non-nouns. However, it has the disadvantage that it does not apply to nouns in all languages. For example in Russian, there are no definite articles, so one cannot define nouns by means of those. There are also several attempts of defining nouns in terms of their semantic properties. Many of these are controversial, but some are discussed below.
In traditional school grammars, one often encounters the definition of nouns that they are all and only those expressions that refer to a ''person'', ''place'', ''thing'', ''event'', ''substance'', ''quality'', or ''idea'', etc. This is a ''semantic'' definition. It has been criticized by contemporary linguists as being uninformative. Contemporary linguists generally agree that one can't define nouns (or other grammatical categories) in terms of what sort of ''object in the world'' they ''refer to'' or ''signify''. Part of the problem is that the definition makes use of relatively ''general'' nouns ("thing," "phenomenon," "event") to define what nouns ''are.'' The existence of such ''general'' nouns shows us that nouns are organized in taxonomic hierarchies. But other kinds of expressions are also organized in hierarchies. For example all of the verbs "stroll," "saunter," "stride," and "tread" are more specific words than the more ''general'' "walk." The latter is more specific than the verb "move," which, in turn, is less general than "change." But it is unlikely that such hierarchies can be used to ''define'' nouns and verbs. We couldn't ''define'' verbs as those words that refer to "changes" or "states", for example, because the nouns ''change'' and ''state'' probably refer to such things, but, of course, aren't verbs. Similarly, nouns like "invasion," "meeting, or "collapse" refer to things that are "done" or "happen." In fact, an influential theory has it that verbs like "kill" or "die" refer to events,[2][3] which is among the sort of thing that nouns are supposed to refer to. The point being made here is not that this view of verbs is wrong, but rather that this property of verbs is a poor basis for a ''definition'' of this category, just like the property of ''having wheels'' is a poor basis for a definition of cars (some things that have wheels, such as my suitcase or a jumbo jet, aren't cars). Similarly, adjectives like "yellow" or "difficult" might be thought to refer to qualities, and adverbs like "outside" or "upstairs" seem to refer to places, which are also among the sorts of thing nouns can refer to. But verbs, adjectives and adverbs are not nouns, and nouns aren't verbs, adjectives or adverbs. One might argue that "definitions" of this sort really rely on speakers' prior intuitive knowledge of what nouns, verbs and adjectives are, and, so don't really add anything over and beyond this. Speakers' intuitive knowledge of such things might plausibly be based on ''formal'' criteria, such as the definition of English nouns on top of the page.
Another semantic definition of nouns is that they are ''prototypically referential.''[4] That definition is also not very helpful in distinguishing actual nouns from verbs. But it may still correctly identify a core property of nounhood. For example, we will tend to use nouns like "fool" and "car" when we wish to refer to fools and cars, respectively. The notion that this is 'prototypical' reflects the fact that such nouns can be used, even though nothing with the corresponding property is referred to:
:John is no 'fool'.
:If I had a 'car', I'd go to Marrakech.
The first sentence above doesn't refer to any fools, nor does the second one refer to any particular car.
The British logician Peter Thomas Geach proposed a very subtle semantic definition of nouns.[5] He noticed that adjectives like "same" can modify nouns, but no other kinds of parts of speech, like verbs or adjectives. Not only that, but there also doesn't seem to be any ''other'' expressions with similar meaning that can modify verbs and adjectives. Consider the following examples.
:: Good: John and Bill participated in the 'same' fight.
:: Bad:
★ John and Bill 'samely' fought.
There is no English adverb "samely." In some other languages, like Czech, however there are adverbs corresponding to "samely." Hence, in Czech, the translation of the last sentence would be fine; however, it would mean that John and Bill fought ''in the same way'': not that they participated in the ''same fight''. Geach proposed that we could explain this, if nouns denote logical predicates with 'identity criteria'. An identity criterion would allow us to conclude, for example, that "person x at time 1 is ''the same person'' as person y at time 2." Different nouns can have different identity criteria. A well known example of this is due to Gupta:[6]
:National Airlines transported 2 million 'passengers' in 1979.
:National Airlines transported (at least) 2 million 'persons' in 1979.
Given that, in general, all passengers are persons, the last sentence above ought to follow logically from the first one. But it doesn't. It is easy to imagine, for example, that on average, every person who travelled with National Airlines in 1979, travelled with them twice. In that case, one would say that the airline transported 2 million ''passengers'' but only 1 million ''persons''. Thus, the way that we count ''passengers'' isn't necessarily the same as the way that we count ''persons''. Put somewhat differently: At two different times, you may correspond to two distinct ''passengers'', even though you are one and the same person. For a precise definition of ''identity criteria'', see Gupta.[6]
Recently, the linguist Mark Baker[8] has proposed that Geach's definition of nouns in terms of identity criteria allows us to ''explain'' the characteristic properties of nouns. He argues that nouns can co-occur with (in-)definite articles and numerals, and are "prototypically referential" ''because'' they are all and only those parts of speech that provide identity criteria. Baker's proposals are quite new, and linguists are still evaluating them.
Proper nouns (also called proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as ''London'' or ''John''), as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as ''city'' or ''person'')[9].
In English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, proper nouns are usually capitalised.[10] Languages differ in whether most elements of multiword proper nouns are capitalised (e.g., American English ''House of Representatives'') or only the initial element (e.g., Slovenian ''Državni zbor'' 'National Assembly'). In German, nouns of all types are capitalised. The convention of capitalising ''all'' nouns was previously used in English, but ended circa 1800. In America, the shift in capitalisation is recorded in several noteworthy documents. The end (but not the beginning) of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and all of the Constitution (1787) show nearly all nouns capitalised, the Bill of Rights (1789) capitalises a few common nouns but not most of them, and the Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment (1865) only capitalises proper nouns.
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example: "There can be many ''gods'', but there is only one ''God''." This is somewhat magnified in Hebrew where ''EL'' means ''god'' (as in ''a god''), ''God'' (as in '''the' God''), and ''El'' (the name of a particular Canaanite god). Another example is the word "Internet." In the vast majority of usage, it is a proper noun, and thus capitalized. However, it can be used as a common noun when talking about "internet technologies" (TCP/IP, DNS, HTTP) that are not necessarily in use on "the Internet," which is a specific global information network. Incorrect capitalization of the proper noun is frequent, even in respected newspapers and magazines.
The common meaning of the word or words constituting a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For example, someone might be named "Tiger Smith" despite being neither a tiger nor a smith. For this reason, proper nouns are usually not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated. For example, the German surname ''Knödel'' becomes ''Knodel'' or ''Knoedel'' in English (not the literal ''Dumpling''). However, the translation of place names and the names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors is common and sometimes universal. For instance, the Portuguese word ''Lisboa'' becomes ''Lisbon'' in English; the English ''London'' becomes ''Londres'' in French; and the Greek ''Aristotelēs'' becomes Aristotle in English.
Main articles: Count noun, Mass noun
''Count nouns'' (or ''countable nouns'') are common nouns that can take a plural, can combine with numerals or quantifiers (e.g. "one", "two", "several", "every", "most"), and can take an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). Examples of count nouns are "chair", "nose", and "occasion".
''Mass nouns'' (or ''non-countable nouns'') differ from count nouns in precisely that respect: they can't take plural or combine with number words or quantifiers. Examples from English include "laughter", "cutlery", "helium", and "furniture". For example, it is not possible to refer to "a furniture" or "three furnitures". This is true, even though the furniture referred to could, in principle, be counted. Thus the distinction between mass and count nouns shouldn't be made in terms of what sorts of things the nouns ''refer'' to, but rather in terms of how the nouns ''present'' these entities.[11][12] The separate page for mass noun contains further explanation of this point.
Some words function in the singular as a count noun and, without a change in the spelling, as a mass noun in the plural: she caught a ''fish'', we caught ''fish''; he shot a ''deer'', they shot some ''deer''; the ''craft'' was dilapidated, the pier was chockablock with ''craft''.
Main articles: Collective noun
''Collective nouns'' are nouns that refer to ''groups'' consisting of more than one individual or entity, even when they are inflected for the singular. Examples include "committee," "herd" and "school" (of herring). These nouns have slightly different grammatical properties than other nouns. For example, the noun phrases that they head can serve as the subject of a collective predicate, even when they are inflected for the singular. A collective predicate is a predicate that normally can't take a singular subject. An example of the latter is "talked to each other."
::Good: The 'boys' talked to each other.
::Bad:
★ The 'boy' talked to each other.
::Good: The 'committee' talked to each other.
''Concrete nouns'' refer to definite objects which you use at least one of your senses to observe. For instance, "chair", "apple", or "Janet". ''Abstract nouns'' on the other hand refer to ideas or concepts, such as "justice" or "hate". While this distinction is sometimes useful, the boundary between the two of them is not always clear. In English, many abstract nouns are formed by adding noun-forming suffixes ("-ness", "-ity", "-tion") to adjectives or verbs. Examples are "happiness", "circulation" and "serenity".
Noun phrases can typically be replaced by pronouns, such as "he", "it", "which", and "those", in order to avoid repetition or explicit identification, or for other reasons. For example, in the sentence "Janet thought that he was weird", the word "he" is a pronoun standing in place of the name of the person in question. The English word ''one'' can replace parts of noun phrases, and it sometimes stands in for a noun. An example is given below:
: John's car is newer than ''the one'' that Bill has.
But ''one'' can also stand in for bigger subparts of a noun phrase. For example, in the following example, '' one'' can stand in for ''new car''.
: This new car is cheaper than ''that one''.
Starting with old Latin grammars, many European languages use some form of the word ''substantive'' as the basic term. Nouns in the dictionaries of such languages are demarked by the abbreviation "s" instead of "n", which may be used for proper nouns instead. This corresponds to those grammars in which nouns and adjectives phase into each other in more areas than, for example, the English term predicate adjective entails. In French and Spanish, for example, adjectives become nouns referring to people who have the characteristics of the adjective. An example in English is:
: The ''poor'' you have always with you.
Similarly, an adjective can also be used for a whole group or organization of people:
: The Socialist ''International''.
Hence, these words are substantives that are usually adjectives in English.
1. Lexical categories and argument structure : a study with reference to Sakha. Ph.D. diss. University of Utrecht.
2. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Nicholas
Rescher, ed., The Logic of Decision and Action, Pittsburgh, Pa: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
3. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press
4. Croft, William. 1993. "A noun is a noun is a noun - or is it? Some reflections on the universality of semantics." Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Joshua S. Guenter, Barbara A. Kaiser and Cheryl C. Zoll, 369-80. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
5. Geach, Peter. 1962. Reference and Generality. Cornell University Press.
6. Gupta, Anil. 1980, The logic of common nouns. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
7. Gupta, Anil. 1980, The logic of common nouns. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
8. Baker, Mark. 2005. ''Lexical Categories - Verbs, nouns and adjectives.'' Cambridge University Press.
9. proper noun
10. The Proper Noun
11. Krifka, Manfred. 1989."Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics". In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, P. von Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Dordrecht: Foris Publication.
12. Borer, Hagit. 2005. ''In Name Only. Structuring Sense, Volume I.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.
★ Laycock, Henry, 2005 'Mass nouns, Count nouns and Non-count nouns', Draft version of entry in ''Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics'' Oxford: Elsevier (pdf)
★ Verbs
★ adjectives
★ part of speech
★ noun phrase
★ mass noun
★ collective noun
★ proper name
★ reference
In linguistics, a 'noun' or 'noun substantive' is a lexical category which is defined in terms of how its members combine with other grammatical kinds of expressions. Since different languages have different inventories of grammatical categories, the definition of 'noun' will differ from language to language. In English, nouns can be defined as those morphological stems that form words which can co-occur with (in)definite articles and attributive adjectives, and function as the head of a noun phrase.
The discovery of nouns
The word comes from the Latin ''nomen'' meaning "name". Word classes like nouns were first described by the Sanskrit grammarian and ancient Greeks like Dionysios Thrax, and defined in terms of their morphological properties. For example, in Ancient Greek, nouns can be inflected for grammatical case, such as dative or accusative. Verbs, on the other hand, can be inflected for tenses, such as past, present or future, while nouns cannot. Aristotle also had a notion of ''onomata'' (nouns) and ''rhemata'' (verbs) which, however, does not exactly correspond with modern notions of nouns and verbs. Nouns are words that describe person, place, thing, animal or abstract idea.[1]
Different definitions of nouns
Expressions of natural language will have properties at different levels. They have ''formal'' properties, like what kinds of morphological prefixes or suffixes they can take, and what kinds of other expressions they can combine with. but they also have semantic properties, i.e. properties pertaining to their meaning. The definition of nouns on the top of this page is thus a ''formal'' definition. That definition is uncontroversial, and has the advantage that it allows us to effectively distinguish nouns from non-nouns. However, it has the disadvantage that it does not apply to nouns in all languages. For example in Russian, there are no definite articles, so one cannot define nouns by means of those. There are also several attempts of defining nouns in terms of their semantic properties. Many of these are controversial, but some are discussed below.
'Rodin's "Thinker."' Should we refer to this with a verb ("think," "ponder") or a noun ("thought," "thinker"), or an adjective ("pensive," "thoughtful")? Arguably, in different contexts, any of these would do!
Names for things
In traditional school grammars, one often encounters the definition of nouns that they are all and only those expressions that refer to a ''person'', ''place'', ''thing'', ''event'', ''substance'', ''quality'', or ''idea'', etc. This is a ''semantic'' definition. It has been criticized by contemporary linguists as being uninformative. Contemporary linguists generally agree that one can't define nouns (or other grammatical categories) in terms of what sort of ''object in the world'' they ''refer to'' or ''signify''. Part of the problem is that the definition makes use of relatively ''general'' nouns ("thing," "phenomenon," "event") to define what nouns ''are.'' The existence of such ''general'' nouns shows us that nouns are organized in taxonomic hierarchies. But other kinds of expressions are also organized in hierarchies. For example all of the verbs "stroll," "saunter," "stride," and "tread" are more specific words than the more ''general'' "walk." The latter is more specific than the verb "move," which, in turn, is less general than "change." But it is unlikely that such hierarchies can be used to ''define'' nouns and verbs. We couldn't ''define'' verbs as those words that refer to "changes" or "states", for example, because the nouns ''change'' and ''state'' probably refer to such things, but, of course, aren't verbs. Similarly, nouns like "invasion," "meeting, or "collapse" refer to things that are "done" or "happen." In fact, an influential theory has it that verbs like "kill" or "die" refer to events,[2][3] which is among the sort of thing that nouns are supposed to refer to. The point being made here is not that this view of verbs is wrong, but rather that this property of verbs is a poor basis for a ''definition'' of this category, just like the property of ''having wheels'' is a poor basis for a definition of cars (some things that have wheels, such as my suitcase or a jumbo jet, aren't cars). Similarly, adjectives like "yellow" or "difficult" might be thought to refer to qualities, and adverbs like "outside" or "upstairs" seem to refer to places, which are also among the sorts of thing nouns can refer to. But verbs, adjectives and adverbs are not nouns, and nouns aren't verbs, adjectives or adverbs. One might argue that "definitions" of this sort really rely on speakers' prior intuitive knowledge of what nouns, verbs and adjectives are, and, so don't really add anything over and beyond this. Speakers' intuitive knowledge of such things might plausibly be based on ''formal'' criteria, such as the definition of English nouns on top of the page.
Prototypically referential expressions
Another semantic definition of nouns is that they are ''prototypically referential.''[4] That definition is also not very helpful in distinguishing actual nouns from verbs. But it may still correctly identify a core property of nounhood. For example, we will tend to use nouns like "fool" and "car" when we wish to refer to fools and cars, respectively. The notion that this is 'prototypical' reflects the fact that such nouns can be used, even though nothing with the corresponding property is referred to:
:John is no 'fool'.
:If I had a 'car', I'd go to Marrakech.
The first sentence above doesn't refer to any fools, nor does the second one refer to any particular car.
Predicates with identity criteria
The British logician Peter Thomas Geach proposed a very subtle semantic definition of nouns.[5] He noticed that adjectives like "same" can modify nouns, but no other kinds of parts of speech, like verbs or adjectives. Not only that, but there also doesn't seem to be any ''other'' expressions with similar meaning that can modify verbs and adjectives. Consider the following examples.
:: Good: John and Bill participated in the 'same' fight.
:: Bad:
★ John and Bill 'samely' fought.
Identity criteria allow us to represent who is identical to whom
There is no English adverb "samely." In some other languages, like Czech, however there are adverbs corresponding to "samely." Hence, in Czech, the translation of the last sentence would be fine; however, it would mean that John and Bill fought ''in the same way'': not that they participated in the ''same fight''. Geach proposed that we could explain this, if nouns denote logical predicates with 'identity criteria'. An identity criterion would allow us to conclude, for example, that "person x at time 1 is ''the same person'' as person y at time 2." Different nouns can have different identity criteria. A well known example of this is due to Gupta:[6]
:National Airlines transported 2 million 'passengers' in 1979.
:National Airlines transported (at least) 2 million 'persons' in 1979.
Given that, in general, all passengers are persons, the last sentence above ought to follow logically from the first one. But it doesn't. It is easy to imagine, for example, that on average, every person who travelled with National Airlines in 1979, travelled with them twice. In that case, one would say that the airline transported 2 million ''passengers'' but only 1 million ''persons''. Thus, the way that we count ''passengers'' isn't necessarily the same as the way that we count ''persons''. Put somewhat differently: At two different times, you may correspond to two distinct ''passengers'', even though you are one and the same person. For a precise definition of ''identity criteria'', see Gupta.[6]
Recently, the linguist Mark Baker[8] has proposed that Geach's definition of nouns in terms of identity criteria allows us to ''explain'' the characteristic properties of nouns. He argues that nouns can co-occur with (in-)definite articles and numerals, and are "prototypically referential" ''because'' they are all and only those parts of speech that provide identity criteria. Baker's proposals are quite new, and linguists are still evaluating them.
Classification of nouns in English
Proper nouns and common nouns
Proper nouns (also called proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as ''London'' or ''John''), as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as ''city'' or ''person'')[9].
In English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, proper nouns are usually capitalised.[10] Languages differ in whether most elements of multiword proper nouns are capitalised (e.g., American English ''House of Representatives'') or only the initial element (e.g., Slovenian ''Državni zbor'' 'National Assembly'). In German, nouns of all types are capitalised. The convention of capitalising ''all'' nouns was previously used in English, but ended circa 1800. In America, the shift in capitalisation is recorded in several noteworthy documents. The end (but not the beginning) of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and all of the Constitution (1787) show nearly all nouns capitalised, the Bill of Rights (1789) capitalises a few common nouns but not most of them, and the Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment (1865) only capitalises proper nouns.
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example: "There can be many ''gods'', but there is only one ''God''." This is somewhat magnified in Hebrew where ''EL'' means ''god'' (as in ''a god''), ''God'' (as in '''the' God''), and ''El'' (the name of a particular Canaanite god). Another example is the word "Internet." In the vast majority of usage, it is a proper noun, and thus capitalized. However, it can be used as a common noun when talking about "internet technologies" (TCP/IP, DNS, HTTP) that are not necessarily in use on "the Internet," which is a specific global information network. Incorrect capitalization of the proper noun is frequent, even in respected newspapers and magazines.
The common meaning of the word or words constituting a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For example, someone might be named "Tiger Smith" despite being neither a tiger nor a smith. For this reason, proper nouns are usually not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated. For example, the German surname ''Knödel'' becomes ''Knodel'' or ''Knoedel'' in English (not the literal ''Dumpling''). However, the translation of place names and the names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors is common and sometimes universal. For instance, the Portuguese word ''Lisboa'' becomes ''Lisbon'' in English; the English ''London'' becomes ''Londres'' in French; and the Greek ''Aristotelēs'' becomes Aristotle in English.
Count nouns and mass nouns
Main articles: Count noun, Mass noun
''Count nouns'' (or ''countable nouns'') are common nouns that can take a plural, can combine with numerals or quantifiers (e.g. "one", "two", "several", "every", "most"), and can take an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). Examples of count nouns are "chair", "nose", and "occasion".
''Mass nouns'' (or ''non-countable nouns'') differ from count nouns in precisely that respect: they can't take plural or combine with number words or quantifiers. Examples from English include "laughter", "cutlery", "helium", and "furniture". For example, it is not possible to refer to "a furniture" or "three furnitures". This is true, even though the furniture referred to could, in principle, be counted. Thus the distinction between mass and count nouns shouldn't be made in terms of what sorts of things the nouns ''refer'' to, but rather in terms of how the nouns ''present'' these entities.[11][12] The separate page for mass noun contains further explanation of this point.
Some words function in the singular as a count noun and, without a change in the spelling, as a mass noun in the plural: she caught a ''fish'', we caught ''fish''; he shot a ''deer'', they shot some ''deer''; the ''craft'' was dilapidated, the pier was chockablock with ''craft''.
Collective Nouns
Main articles: Collective noun
''Collective nouns'' are nouns that refer to ''groups'' consisting of more than one individual or entity, even when they are inflected for the singular. Examples include "committee," "herd" and "school" (of herring). These nouns have slightly different grammatical properties than other nouns. For example, the noun phrases that they head can serve as the subject of a collective predicate, even when they are inflected for the singular. A collective predicate is a predicate that normally can't take a singular subject. An example of the latter is "talked to each other."
::Good: The 'boys' talked to each other.
::Bad:
★ The 'boy' talked to each other.
::Good: The 'committee' talked to each other.
Concrete nouns and Abstract nouns
''Concrete nouns'' refer to definite objects which you use at least one of your senses to observe. For instance, "chair", "apple", or "Janet". ''Abstract nouns'' on the other hand refer to ideas or concepts, such as "justice" or "hate". While this distinction is sometimes useful, the boundary between the two of them is not always clear. In English, many abstract nouns are formed by adding noun-forming suffixes ("-ness", "-ity", "-tion") to adjectives or verbs. Examples are "happiness", "circulation" and "serenity".
Nouns and Pronouns
Noun phrases can typically be replaced by pronouns, such as "he", "it", "which", and "those", in order to avoid repetition or explicit identification, or for other reasons. For example, in the sentence "Janet thought that he was weird", the word "he" is a pronoun standing in place of the name of the person in question. The English word ''one'' can replace parts of noun phrases, and it sometimes stands in for a noun. An example is given below:
: John's car is newer than ''the one'' that Bill has.
But ''one'' can also stand in for bigger subparts of a noun phrase. For example, in the following example, '' one'' can stand in for ''new car''.
: This new car is cheaper than ''that one''.
Substantive as a word for "noun"
Starting with old Latin grammars, many European languages use some form of the word ''substantive'' as the basic term. Nouns in the dictionaries of such languages are demarked by the abbreviation "s" instead of "n", which may be used for proper nouns instead. This corresponds to those grammars in which nouns and adjectives phase into each other in more areas than, for example, the English term predicate adjective entails. In French and Spanish, for example, adjectives become nouns referring to people who have the characteristics of the adjective. An example in English is:
: The ''poor'' you have always with you.
Similarly, an adjective can also be used for a whole group or organization of people:
: The Socialist ''International''.
Hence, these words are substantives that are usually adjectives in English.
References
1. Lexical categories and argument structure : a study with reference to Sakha. Ph.D. diss. University of Utrecht.
2. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Nicholas
Rescher, ed., The Logic of Decision and Action, Pittsburgh, Pa: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
3. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press
4. Croft, William. 1993. "A noun is a noun is a noun - or is it? Some reflections on the universality of semantics." Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Joshua S. Guenter, Barbara A. Kaiser and Cheryl C. Zoll, 369-80. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
5. Geach, Peter. 1962. Reference and Generality. Cornell University Press.
6. Gupta, Anil. 1980, The logic of common nouns. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
7. Gupta, Anil. 1980, The logic of common nouns. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
8. Baker, Mark. 2005. ''Lexical Categories - Verbs, nouns and adjectives.'' Cambridge University Press.
9. proper noun
10. The Proper Noun
11. Krifka, Manfred. 1989."Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics". In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, P. von Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Dordrecht: Foris Publication.
12. Borer, Hagit. 2005. ''In Name Only. Structuring Sense, Volume I.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bibliography
★ Laycock, Henry, 2005 'Mass nouns, Count nouns and Non-count nouns', Draft version of entry in ''Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics'' Oxford: Elsevier (pdf)
See also
★ Verbs
★ adjectives
★ part of speech
★ noun phrase
★ mass noun
★ collective noun
★ proper name
★ reference
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
