NOUN

A noun can co-occur with

anarticle or an attributive

adjective. Verbs and

adjectives can't. In the

following, an asterisk (*) in

front of an example

means that this example is

ungrammatical.

1. the name (name is a

noun: can co-occur with a

definite article the.)

2. *the baptize (baptize is a

verb: cannot co-occur

with a definite article.)

3. constant circulation

(circulation is a noun: can

co-occur with the

attributive adjective

constant.)

4. *constant circulate

(circulate is a verb: cannot

co-occur with the

attributive adjective

constant.)

5. a fright (fright is a noun:

can co-occur with the

indefinite article a.)

6. *an afraid (afraid is an

adjective: cannot co-occur

with the article a.)

7. terrible fright (The noun

fright can co-occur with

the adjective terrible.)

8. *terrible afraid (The

adjective afraid cannot co-

occur with the adjective

terrible.)

In linguistics, a noun is a

member of a large, open

lexical category whose

members can occur as

the main word in the

subject of a clause, the

object of a verb, or the

object of a preposition (or

put more simply, a noun

is a word used to name a

person, animal, place,

thing or abstract idea).[1]

Lexical categories are

defined in terms of how

their members combine

with other kinds of

expressions. Thesyntactic

rules for nouns differ

from language to

language. InEnglish,

nouns may be defined as

those words which can

occur with articles and

attributive adjectives and

can function as the head

of a noun phrase.

In traditional English

grammar, the noun is one

of the eightparts of

speech.

History

Noun comes from the

Latin nōmen "name",[2] a

translation of Ancient

Greek ónoma.[3] Word

classes like nouns were

first described byPāṇini in

the Sanskrit language and

by Ancient Greek

grammarians, and were

defined by the

grammaticalforms that

they take. In Greek and

Sanskrit, for example,

nouns are categorized by

gender and inflected for

case and number.

Because nouns and

adjectives share these

three categories,

Dionysius Thrax does not

clearly distinguish

between the two, and

uses the term ónoma

"name" for both, although

some of the words that

he describes as

paragōgón (pl. paragōgá)

"derived"[4] are

adjectives.[5]

Different

definitions of

nouns

Expressions of natural

language have properties

at different levels. They

have formal properties,

like what kinds of

morphological prefixes or

suffixes they take and

what kinds of other

expressions they combine

with; but they also have

semantic properties, i.e.

properties pertaining to

their meaning. The

definition of a noun at the

outset of this article is thus

a formal, traditional

grammatical definition.

That definition, for the

most part, is considered

uncontroversial and

furnishes the means for

users of certain languages

to effectively distinguish

most nouns from non-

nouns. However, it has

the disadvantage that it

does not apply to nouns

in all languages. For

example inRussian, there

are no definite articles, so

one cannot define nouns

as words that are

modified by definite

articles. There have also

been several attempts to

define nouns in terms of

theirsemantic properties.

Many of these are

controversial, but some

are discussed below.

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,

quantity, or idea, etc. This

is a semantic definition. It

has been criticized by

contemporary linguists as

being uninformative.[6]

Contemporary linguists

generally agree that one

cannot successfully define

nouns (or other

grammatical categories) in

terms of what sort of

object in the world they

refer to or signify. Part of

the conundrum is that the

definition makes use of

relatively general nouns

(thing, phenomenon,

event) to define what

nouns are.

The existence of such

general nouns

demonstrates that nouns

refer to entities that are

organized intaxonomic

hierarchies. But other

kinds of expressions are

also organized into such

structured taxonomic

relationships. For example

the verbs stroll, saunter,

stride, and tread are more

specific words than the

more general walk – see

Troponymy. Moreover,

walk is more specific than

the verb move, which, in

turn, is less general than

change. But it is unlikely

that such taxonomic

relationships can be used

to define nouns and

verbs. We cannot 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, are

not verbs. Similarly,

nouns like invasion,

meeting, or collapse refer

to things that are done or

happen. In fact, an

influentialtheory has it

that verbs like kill or die

refer to events,[7][8] one

of the categories of things

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

most suitcases 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 things nouns can refer

to. But verbs, adjectives,

and adverbs are not

nouns, and nouns are not

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

do not really add

anything. Speakers'

intuitive knowledge of

such things might

plausibly be based on

formal criteria, such as the

traditional grammatical

definition of English nouns

aforementioned.

Predicates with

identity criteria

The British logician Peter

Thomas Geach proposed

a more subtle semantic

definition of nouns.[9] 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

do not seem to be any

other expressions with

similar meaning that can

modify verbs and

adjectives. Consider the

following examples.

grammatical: John and Bill

participated in thesame

fight.

ungrammatical: *John and

Billsamely 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 logicalpredicates

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:[10]

National Airlines

transported 2 million

passengers in 1979.

National Airlines

transported (at least) 2

millionpersons 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.[10]

Prototypically

referential

expressions

Another semantic

definition of nouns is that

they are prototypically

referential.[11]

Recently, Mark Baker[12]

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 thoseparts 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

Main article: Proper noun

A proper noun or proper

name is a noun

representing unique

entities (such asLondon,

Jupiter, Larry, or Toyota),

as distinguished from

common nouns which

describe a class of entities

(such as city, planet,

person or car).[13]

Countable and

uncountable nouns

Main articles: Count noun

and Mass noun

Count nouns are

common nouns that can

take aplural, 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-

count 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

pieces of furniture

comprising furniture

could be counted. Thus

the distinction between

mass and count nouns

should not be made in

terms of what sorts of

things the nouns refer to,

but rather in terms of

how the nouns present

these entities.[14][15]

Collective nouns

Main article: Collective

noun

Collective nouns are

nouns that refer to groups

consisting of more than

one individual or entity,

even when they are

inflected for thesingular.

Examples include

committee, herd, and

school (of fish). 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.

Concrete nouns and

abstract nouns

Further information:

physical

bodyand abstract object

Concrete nouns refer to

physical entities that can,

in principle at least, be

observed by at least one

of thesenses (for

instance, chair, apple,

Janet or atom). Abstract

nouns, on the other hand,

refer toabstract objects;

that is, ideas or concepts

(such as justice or hatred).

While this distinction is

sometimes exclusive,

some nouns have

multiple senses, including

both concrete and

abstract ones; consider,

for example, the noun art,

which usually refers to a

concept (e.g., Art is an

important element of

human culture) but which

can refer to a specific

artwork in certain contexts

(e.g., I put my daughter's

art up on the fridge).

Some abstract nouns

developed etymologically

by figurative extension

from literal roots. These

include drawback,

fraction, holdout, and

uptake. Similarly, some

nouns have both abstract

and concrete senses, with

the latter having

developed by figurative

extension from the

former. These include

view, filter, structure, and

key.

In English, many abstract

nouns are formed by

adding noun-forming

suffixes (-ness, -ity, -ion)

to adjectives or verbs.

Examples are happiness

(from the adjective

happy), circulation (from

the verb circulate) and

serenity (from the

adjective serene).

Nouns and

pronouns

Nouns and noun phrases

can typically be replaced

bypronouns, 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 ofnoun 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

"Substantive" redirects

here. For other uses, see

Substance

(disambiguation).

Starting with old Latin

grammars, many

European languages use

some form of the word

substantive as the basic

term for noun (for

example, Spanish

sustantivo, "noun").

Nouns in the dictionaries

of such languages are

demarked by the

abbreviation s. or sb.

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 frequently act

as nouns referring to

people who have the

characteristics of the

adjective. The most

common metalanguage

to name this concept is

nominalization. An

example in English is:

This legislation will have

the most impact on the

poor.

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.

The word nominal also

overlaps in meaning and

usage with noun and

adjective.

See also

Description

Grammatical case

Phi features

Reference

Lexical categories and

their features

Noun

Abstract/Concrete ·

Adjectival · Agent ·

Animate/Inanimate ·

Attributive · Collective ·

Common/Proper ·

Countable · Deverbal ·

Initial-stress-derived ·

Mass · Relational ·

Strong · Verbal · Weak

Verb

Verb

forms

Finite · Non-

finite —

Attributive ·

Converb ·

Gerund ·

Gerundive ·

Infinitive ·

Participle

(adjectival ·

adverbial) ·

Supine · Verbal

noun

Verb

types

Accusative ·

Ambitransitive ·

Andative/

Venitive·

Anticausative ·

Autocausative ·

Auxiliary ·

Captative ·

Catenative ·

Compound ·

Copular ·

Defective ·

Denominal ·

Deponent ·

Ditransitive ·

Dynamic ·

ECM · Ergative ·

Frequentative ·

Impersonal ·

Inchoative ·

Intransitive ·

Irregular ·

Lexical · Light ·

Modal ·

Monotransitive ·

Negative ·

Performative ·

Phrasal ·

Predicative ·

Preterite-

present·

Reflexive ·

Regular ·

Separable ·

Stative ·

Stretched ·

Strong ·

Transitive ·

Unaccusative ·

Unergative ·

Weak

Adjective

Collateral ·

Demonstrative ·

Possessive · Post-

positive

Adverb

Genitive ·

Conjunctive · Flat ·

Prepositional ·

Pronomial

Pronoun

Demonstrative ·

Disjunctive ·

Distributive · Donkey ·

Dummy · Formal/

Informal · Gender-

neutral · Gender-

specific · Inclusive/

Exclusive · Indefinite ·

Intensive ·

Interrogative ·

Objective · Personal ·

Possessive ·

Prepositional ·

Reciprocal · Reflexive ·

Relative · Resumptive ·

Subjective · Weak

Preposition Inflected · Casally

modulated

Conjunction

Determiner

Article ·

Demonstrative ·

Interrogative ·

Possessive · Quantifier

Classifier

Particle Discourse · Modal ·

Noun

Complementizer

Other

Copula · Coverb ·

Expletive · Interjection

(verbal) · Measure

word · Preverb · Pro-

form · Pro-sentence ·

Pro-verb · Procedure

word

References

1. ^ Loos, Eugene E., et al.

2003. Glossary of

linguistic terms: What is a

noun?

2. ^ nōmen. Charlton T.

Lewis and Charles Short.

A Latin Dictionary on

Perseus Project.

3. ^ ὄνομα. Liddell, Henry

George; Scott, Robert; A

Greek-English Lexicon at

Perseus Project

4. ^ παραγωγός in Liddell

and Scott

5. ^ Dionysius Thrax. τέχνη

γραμματική (Art of

Grammar), section ιβ´

(10b): περὶ ὀνόματος

(On the noun). Bibliotheca

Augustana.

εἴδη δὲ παραγώνων

ἐστὶν ἑπτά·

πατρωνυμικόν,

κτητικόν,

συγκριτικόν,

ὑπερθετικόν,

ὑποκοριστικόν,

παρώνυμον, ῥηματικόν.

There are seven types of

derived [nouns]:

patronymic, possessive,

comparative, superlative,

diminutive, derived from

a noun, [and] verbal.

6. ^ Jackendoff, Ray. 2002.

Foundations of language:

brain, meaning,

grammar, evolution.

Oxford University Press.

Page 124.

7. ^ 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.

8. ^ Parsons, Terence. 1990.

Events in the semantics of

English: a study in

subatomic semantics.

Cambridge, Mass.:MIT

Press

9. ^ Geach, Peter. 1962.

Reference and Generality.

Cornell University Press.

10. ^ a b Gupta, Anil. 1980,

The logic of common

nouns. New Haven and

London: Yale University

Press.

11. ^ 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.

12. ^ Baker, Mark. 2003,

Lexical Categories: verbs,

nouns, and adjectives.

Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

13. ^ Lester, Mark; Larry

Beason (2005). The

McGraw-Hill Handbook of

English Grammar and

Usage. McGraw-Hill. p. 4.

ISBN 0-07-144133-6.

14. ^ 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.

15. ^ 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)