From: "Jean Waldman" <[log in to unmask]>

To: "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: Notional Nouns

Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:35 AM

 

 

 

One reason people find grammar confusing is that they are forced to memorize notional definitions that have no relation to the actual use of language.  We should be able to develop a more descriptive notional definition, one that can be used to help people, from kindergarten to old age, to be aware of what they are doing when they use a common noun.  I am not opposed to notional definitions.  I am opposed to irrelevant notional definitions, as exemplified by this recitation of person, place, or thing.   

 

We all agree that the word chair is a noun: that, in fact, it belongs to the subclass we call common nouns.  

 

So if I send you the word chair, by speaking the word chair, or providing it on paper or on a computer screen, what information does the word chair provide for your mind?    Does chair have four legs, or none at all?  Does it have arms?  Is it padded?  

 

The fact is, I did not give you that information.  When I gave you the word alone, I did not name a person, place or thing.  I did indicate a reference to a single member of a class of objects.  You could tell it was singular because there was no s on the end.  The word chair usually refers to a device to support the human body in a particular position.  If you want more information about it, you have to look at other words around it when I use it with the intention of giving information.  The word chair, therefore, is a classifying word.  

 

This analysis seems like irrelevant minutiae until you try to help a foreign student understand the significance of those words around the common noun.  

 

You can do a lot of talking and writing and make long lists, but do they really provide an understanding of the functioning language?

 

Analysis, not repetition of theories, is a crucial step to understanding English grammar.    Of course, the more theories you can apply to the analysis, the more useful it becomes. 

 

Historically, this is my supposition.  Common nouns were called common because they indicated classes that had characteristics in common.  This descriptive definition proved difficult for hurried teachers to use, and, besides, the word common became associated with lower class or vulgar.  The word proper, on the other hand, was held in high esteem, so teachers borrowed the proper definition for the common noun.  Maybe we could call them specific or naming nouns and classifying nouns, instead of proper and common nouns.   

 

Jean Waldman, retired lecturer, 

University of Maryland 

 

 

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/