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