The evaluation of the differential features of both cited classifications allows us to work out a classification of the lexicon presenting some essential generalizations about its structure (Blokch: 44-48). The semantico – grammatical analysis of the lexicon shows that it is explicitly divided into two parts: the notional words (lexical words) and functional words. The open character of the notional part and the closed character of the functional part have the status of a formal grammatical feature. Between these two parts there is an intermediary field of semi-functional words. The unity of the notional lexemes, as well as their division into four infinitely large classes is demonstrated in the inner-class system of derivation. This inner class system of derivation is presented as a four-stage series permitting the lexicon. It has been given the name of “Lexical paradigm of nomination”

    For example: “fancy – to fancy – fanciful - fancifully”. As the initial position in a particular nomination paradigm can be occupied by a lexeme of any word class, one can define the concrete “derivational perspective” of the given series in accord with a part of speech status of the constituent in the initial position.         

Thus, in the following paradigm of nomination the derivational perspective is verbal (Và): to decide – decision – decisive - decisively

The universal character of the nomination paradigm is sustained by suppletivity, both lexemic and phrasemic, e.g. “an end – to end – final - finally” (lexemic), “gratitude – grateful – gratefully – to express gratitude” (phrasemic).

    The lexical paradigm of nomination has a parallel substitutional representation: “one, it, they… - to do, to make, to act… - such, same, similar… - thus, so, there”.

    In consequence of the identification of the said pronominal paradigm representation, the functional part of the lexicon is to be divided in two sets: first, the pronominal; second the functional proper or “specifier”. Thus, the general classification of the lexicon, not denying or in any such depreciating the merits of their classification, but rather deriving its essential propositions from their positive data is to be presented in a such outline:

- the whole of the lexicon is divided into three layers,

- the first, the upper layer, having an open character, is formed by four classes of notional words; since these words have nominative value, they may be referred to as “names”: respectively, substance – names (noun), process-names (verbs), primary property names (adjectives), secondary property names (adverbs). The names are consolidated into an integral system by the lexical paradigm of nomination – the paradigmatic series whose function is to form and distribute any given word among the four lexical class –types (parts of speech).

- The second, intermediate layer, having closed character is formed by pronominal words or “substitutes of names”; here belong pronouns and replacer lexemes of all kinds, words of broad meaning (thing, matter) and also numbers;

- The third, the lower layer, having a closed character, is formed by functional words proper, or “specifiers of names”: determiners, prepositions, conjunctions, particles, etc.

Thus, the function of the second and the third layers within the framework of their specifying role, is to organize together with the categorical means of grammar, the production of speech utterances out of the direct naming means of language (the first layer).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

References

1.Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - M., 2000. – p.6-26

2.Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики – М., 2000

3. Кубрякова Е.С. Части речи в ономасиологическом освещении. – М., 1986

4. Ilyish B. The structure of Modern English. –L., 1971 – p.27-35, 66-72

NOUN AND ITS CATEGORIES

1. The category of gender

2. The category of number

3. The category of case

4. The category of article determination

Terms: substance, gender, number, case, article determination, subject, object, combinability, person, genitive case, word, morpheme

The category of gender

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 analyzed. The existence of gender appears to be doubtful also.

The Modern English noun certainly has not got the category of grammatical gender, which is to be found, for example, in Rus­sian, 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 (but remember such cases as actor –actress, lion - lioness).

Category of number

Modern English, as most other languages, distinguishes between two numbers, singular and plural.

The essential meaning of singular and plural seems clear enough: the singular number shows that one object is meant, and the plural shows that more than one object is meant. Thus, the opposition is "one — more than one". This holds good for many nouns: table — tables, pupil — pupils, dog — dogs, etc.

First of all, it is to be noted that there is some difference be­tween, say, three houses and three hours. Whereas three houses are three separate objects existing side by side, three hours are a con­tinuous period of time measured by a certain agreed unit, of dura­tion. The same, of course, would apply to such expressions as three miles, three acres, etc.

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 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, lungs, pincers, breeches; environs, outskirts, dregs. Close to this group of pluralia tantum nouns are also some name 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.

The direct opposite of pluralia tantum are the singularia tantum, i. e. the nouns which have no plural form. Among these we mat 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 ехpress notions which are, strictly speaking, outside the sphere of number: e. g. milk, or fluency. 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 ) which definitely shows the noun to be singular.

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

Recently a peculiar view of the category of number was put forward by A. Isachenko. According to this view, the essential inclining 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.

Category of case

The problem of case in Modern English nouns is one of the most vexed 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 (e. g. father) and a genitive (or possessive) case (e. g. father's). Side by side with this view there are a number of other views, which can be roughly 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.

Case is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted in the noun and other things, or properties, or actions, and manifasted by some formal sign in the noun itself. This sign is almost always an inflection, and it may also be a "zero" sign, i.e. the absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another. It is obvious that the minimum number .

Different views have also been expressed concerning the scope of meaning of the -s. Besides phrases implying possession in the strict sense of the term (my father's books, etc.), the -s is also found in other contexts, such as my father's friends, my father's arrival, my father's willingness, etc.. The question now arises how wide this scope may be. From this point of view it has been customary to point out that the relation expressed by the collocation- "noun + -s + noun" is often a subjective relation, as in my father's ar­rival: my father's expresses the subject of the action, cf. my father arrives. This would then correspond to the so-called subjective ge­nitive of inflected languages, such as Russian or Latin. It would, however, not do to say that the noun having the -'s could never indicate the object of the action: cf. the example Doughty's famous trial and execution, where the implied meaning of course is, 'Doughty was tried and executed'. This would correspond to the so-called objective genitive of inflected languages. Now, though this particular use would seem to be far less frequent than the subjec­tive, it is by no means impossible or anomalous. Thus it would not be correct to formulate the meaning of the -'s in a way that would exclude the possible objective applications of the -'s-formation.

Parallel use of the -'s-form and the preposition of is seen in the following example: In the light of this it was Lyman's belief and it is mine — that it is a man's duty and the duty of his friends to see to it that his exit from this world, at least, shall be made with all possible dignity.

In Old English, the notions of number and case were always expressed by one morpheme. Thus, in the Old English form stana the ending -a expressed simultaneously the plural number and the genitive ease. That was typical of an inflected language, A change came already in Middle English, and in Modern English the two notions have been entirely separated. This is especially clear in the nouns which do not form their plural in -s: in the forms men's, children’s number is expressed by the root vowel and the inflection -ren, where the -s expresses case alone. But this applies to nouns forming their plural in -s as well.

Another view of the case system in English nouns must also be mentioned here, namely the view that we should distinguish between a nominative and an objective case, though there is no difference between the two in any English noun. Such a differentiation could only be based on the fact that personal pronouns (I, he, she, we, they) and the pronoun who have different forms for these cases (I — me, etc.). If, therefore, we start on the assump­tion that the system of cases is bound to be the same in these pro­nouns and in all nouns, we shall be led to acknowledge the two cases in nouns. However, there would seem to be no necessity to endorse this view. It is probably more advisable to consider the case system of nouns without taking into account that of the per­sonal pronouns.