Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
The noun in Albanian language classified as common and proper. The common nouns in turn divide into countable and uncountable. Collective nouns and substance nouns are subclasses of the other classes. The structure of noun formation between Albanian and English on the general aspect of morphology and syntax still didn’t study in the way of comparative, contrast and generative. Those fields are our object of study. In Albanian and English we find some concepts of studies for noun for example: “Emër quhet ajo pjesë e ligjëratës që emërton qenie të gjalla dhe sende dhe ka kategoritë gramatikore të gjinisë, numrit, rasës, të shquarsisë e të pashquarsisë”. Nouns can be broadly into a small number of classes that have meaning and grammatical behavior. “Nouns (alb. Emër) belong to open class set of items. The set is indefinitely extendable since new nouns are constantly created and are added to the existing register of English nouns. The server denotes people, objects, places, events and phenomena”. There is an important distinct common and proper nouns. Common nouns can be countable and uncountable. Countable nouns refer to entities which can be counted, they are singular and plural forms (a cow, two cows) etc.). Both in the singular and plural there is a contrast between definite and indefinite forms (a cow, two cows, the cows). Uncountable nouns refer to entities which cannot be counted and uncounted for number. Though they do not combine with the indefinite article, the contrast between an indefinite and definite form (e.g. milk, the milk)…
Eva van Lier (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes, 339 364 (Chapter 17). Oxford: OUP.
Nouns (uncorrected proofs Ch. 17 of The Handbook of Word Classes)2023 •
The prototypical noun is a basic, underived content word, which serves as the head of a noun phrase that is typically used to refer to one or more concrete, physical objects like cups, cats, or cars (‘first order entities’; Lyons 1977: 442). However, nouns are also employed to talk about masses (waterN), places (valleyN), collectives (crowdN) and emotions (loveN, fearN), as well as events (‘second order entities’) like weddingN or meetingN, propositions or possible facts (‘third order entities’) like beliefN or opinionN, and speech acts (‘fourth order entities’) like questionN or commentN. For reasons explained below (see in particular section 20.3), the current chapter is mostly concerned with basic, unmarked nouns that are used to refer to a concrete object in the physical world. This chapter offers an overview of members of the word class Noun from a typologically informed, cross-linguistic perspective (see Part II of this volume for other approaches to word classes). It is sometimes assumed that a distinct lexical category Noun is attested in every natural human language (Sapir 1921: 119; Whaley 1997: 32; Croft 2003: 183; Chung 2012), but this appears not to be the case. It has been argued, for example, that nouns cannot be distinguished syntactically from other major word classes like verbs or adjectives in the Polynesian languages Samoan and Tongan (Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: 73; Broschart 1997; see also e.g. Himmelmann 2005: 128). Furthermore, it has been noted that reference to a concrete object in Oneida and other indigenous North American languages commonly involves the use of verbal forms or constructions (Michelson 1990: 76; Mithun 1999: 60-61, 82; Abbott 2000: 48). The remainder of this chapter proceeds as follows. Section 20.2 is concerned with the status of the word class Noun as a cross-linguistic lexical category. Section 20.3 presents a cross-linguistic classification of the nominal lexemes that are central in this chapter: nouns that are used to talk about a spatial object in the external world, also known as ‘concrete nouns’ or ‘first order nouns.’ Section 20.4 is concerned with lexemes that do not fit easily in the classification of nominal subcategories presented in section 20.3. Section 20.5 offers a brief overview of certain (other) semantic, morphological, phonological, or cognitive properties of nouns and the chapter ends with a conclusion (section 20.6).
[This paper was written as a squib for an introductory class on semantics. It presents original research, but does so without the benefit of an overview of the literature.] The use of the word ‘the’ in English with singular nouns often denotes a referent; under generalized quantifier theory, this usage is reinterpreted as a quantifier, allowing the noun phrase to be conjoined with other quantified expressions. However, a look at other classes of nouns—bare plurals, mass nouns and generic nouns—demonstrates that the article is more closely tied to Carlsonian level than it is to semantic type; the definite article marks reference at the object level. This usage contrasts with articular systems in other languages, such as French.
Journal of Language and Culture Language and Information, 3, 133-151, Department of Language and Culture, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University
The Acquisition of English Articles by Advanced EFL Japanese Learners: Analysis Based on Noun Types2008 •
The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization
The grammaticalization of definite articles2011 •
This article explores the grammaticalisation of the grammar category of definite articles. It explains that the grammaticalisation process that leads to the development of articles which exhibits cross-linguistic regularities. In most cases, the definite article originates from a weakened demonstrative, while the indefinite article derives from the unity numeral ‘one’. This article also discusses the morphosyntactic role of noun marker or noun phrase marker in the grammaticalisation of definite articles.
Postposition of definite article is among of the main balkanisms that takes place in Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. The problem of the article in Albanian has caused remarkable disputes in scholarship. There is a vast literature concerning it, as for instance the researches of F etc., who have contributed to the solution of this thorny problem during the last two centuries. This problem has been displayed as a permanent debate on questions such as «What is the origin of the postpositive (definite) article in Albanian?» «Which article is older, the prepositive or the postpositive?» that is «Did the prepositive article derive from the postpositive one or, vice-versa, the postpositive article derive from the prepositive one?». Based on various argumentations, several researchers put forward a number of opinions with regard to this issue. However, there are chiefly two opinions on the origin of the articles: 1) The prepositive article is older than the postpositive/definite one. The prepositive article was uttered together with the preceding noun and was interpreted as its part. Consequently, it reappeared in its habitual position , in the original formula noun + article + adjective. 2) The postpositive/definite article is older than the prepositive one. Postposition preceded preposition, while the latter of these derived from the former through repetition of the postpositive article. The first opinion was put forth by H. Pedersen and was also embraced by A. Graur (dealing primarily with Romanian articles), B. Bokshi, S. Riza etc. The weakness of this opinion was manifested through the following question: Is it possible for the article to exist at the beginning of the adjective without acting any determinative function? How could it become true for the postpositive article to acquire a determinative function, since it did not exist at the prepositive one? Which way, then, did the determinative function feature the category of the nouns? The second opinion was set forth by E. Çabej (1963:78). It was further espoused by Sh. Demiraj and was silently accepted hitherto as the «official» view of the Albanian Postwar Linguistics. The weakness of this opinion was traced through the following question: How is it possible for an agglutinative element to be separated and to stand out as an independent element, even repeated? What was, then, the need of a mechanic repetition?
2012 •
2017 •
2019 •
2020 •
2015 •
Ilha Revista de Antropologia
Ensaios críticos, vanguarda e intelectualidade – guerreiro Ramos, o não contemporizador2016 •
British Educational Research Journal
Radical education and the common school: a democratic alternative2011 •
2022 •
Revue Neurologique
Effet du natalizumab sur les troubles cognitifs dans les formes rémittentes de sclérose en plaques2012 •
Marmara Pharmaceutical Journal
2,2'-Diaminokarbanilid'in bakır(II) kompleksinin oluşumu ve kararlılığı1991 •
Research in International Business and Finance
The value relevance of risk disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from MENA emerging markets2015 •
Economy, Finance and Business in Southeastern and Central Europe
The Comparison of Public Sector Accounting between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina2018 •
Food Chemistry
Glycation of soy proteins leads to a range of fractions with various supramolecular assemblies and surface activities2021 •
Journal of Visual Literacy
Critical analysis of research on the impact of visual literacy for learning: strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for improvement2019 •
Biopolymers and Cell
Regulatory regions of plant genes promoters and proteins-regulators of promotive activity2004 •
Islamica: Jurnal Studi Keislaman
Partisipasi Politik Perempuan Menurut Fatima Mernissi dan Relevansinya dengan Affirmative Action di Indonesia2019 •
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine
Increasing the effective resolution of thermal infrared images2000 •
2017 •