• A. V. Novosilets
Keywords: nominative phrase classification modifier noun, criteria and conceptual structure


The proposed article details the problem of classification criteria noun modifiers in modern English. Relevance of the article caused lively interest to scientists grammatical and pragmatic aspects of learning English morphology, as well as the reasons for the evolution of modern English language lexical and grammatical levels. The aim of this work was to analyze and give an expert assessment of the criteria for the classification of noun modifiers in modern English. The article analyzes the main important research recently devoted nominative phrases and their classification in modern linguistics (VD Arakin, RS Shutnykova, SL Charekov). Noted trend toward transition from theories that lists a limited number of specified underlying structures, studies that use the most generalized interpretative rules which translate objectives prescription details the interpretation of each individual connection for pragmatists. In our study also noted that the classification of noun modifiers in modern English grammar implies, distribution and morphology-relevant criteria and criteria for the structural and genetic type. In addition, also made an attempt interpretation nominative form, which is a complex process that requires a native speaker of individual ability to solve creative lexical and grammatical problems. To this end, the speaker must have the following resources: a form that the speaker chose to use; the context in which this form is filed; stock linguistic tools, templates and semantic information sets and the ability to create new semantic sets similar to existing structures or the ability to adapt existing semantic system. You should also assume that you need a modular mechanism. In it we have identified three main modules: 1) semantic module composition (embedding produces cognitive semantic structure modifier to the main component. It provides value modifier value subordination main words); 2) module pragmatic blending (provides an interactive interpretative process in which mixed cognitive-semantic structure modifier and the main word. This may require the introduction of additional cognitive-semantic structures needed for communication between lexical concepts); 3) module specifically correct formation received cognitive-semantic structures (providing a condition in which full cognitive semantic interpretation of the structure of the resulting combination Mod + N has the same shape as the simple noun). The prospect of further studies in this issue is the analysis of linguistic research in this area, as well as the possibility of using the results obtained during teaching theoretical courses on lexicology, grammar, pragmatic grammar, semantics, semasiology in British branches of foreign languages.



1. Аракин В. Д. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков / Аракин В. Д. - М. : Учеб. пособие. - 2-е изд: Просвещение, 1989. - 117 с.
2. Чареков С. Л. Семантическая структура словообразования в русском и алтайских языках / Череков С. Л. - СПб.: Наука. - 2004. - 106 с.
3. Шутникова Р. С. К вопросу о сочетаемости прилагательных в современном английском языке / Р. С. Шутникова. - М. - А.К.Д. - 1966 .- 167 с.
4. Aarts, J.M. Metaphor and non-metaphor. The semantics of adjective – noun combinations. [Text] / Aarts, J. M. and J. P. Calbert. – Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1979. – 252 p.
5. Katz, J. J., and J. A. Fodor. The structure of a semantic theory. [Text] / J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. – Language, 1963, v. 39 (1). – P. 170-210.
6. Representation and relevance [Text] / Sperber, D. and D. Wilson // Kempson, R. (ed.) Mental representations: the interface between language and reality. – Cambridge University Press, 1988. – P. 133-153.
7. Sperber, D. Relevance: Communication and cognition [Text] / D. Sperber and D. Wilson. – Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. – 243 p.; Sperber, D.
How to Cite
Novosilets, A. V. (2017). CRITERIA FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF NOUN MODIFIERS IN ENGLISH. Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia National University. Philological Sciences, (1), 160-166. Retrieved from