User:Peter coxhead/English species names as proper names

This essay discusses the classification of nouns and noun phrases in English and then considers whether the English names of species are proper nouns or noun phrases. It concludes that the evidence is not definitive, but that grammatical tests suggest that English species names are used as either count nouns/noun phrases or mass nouns/noun phrases.

Mass, count and proper nouns/noun phrases in English

This section presents a quick review of distinctions commonly made in English syntax. The discussion here is confined to nouns referring to physical objects ('concrete nouns') rather than those referring to abstractions, such as patience, nationhood, happiness ('abstract nouns').

Any particular use of a concrete noun in English can be placed (more or less) into one of three classes, count nouns, mass nouns, and proper nouns, based on the noun’s grammatical behaviour in that usage rather than its meaning (semantics). Note that it is the use that is being classified, not the noun itself. A given noun may be in one class in one sentence and in another class in another sentence.

(The "more or less" qualification is because language is how it is used; there are always exceptions and marginal cases in real languages.)

Count nouns normally have both singular and plural forms, and can be preceded by quantifiers such as numerals or words like many. Thus dog is a count noun in most uses, as is shown by:

• I have one dog.
• Many dogs are brown.

Except when writing in note form, singular count nouns require a determiner:

• *Dog is mine. [* marks ungrammatical phrases and sentences]
• The dog is mine.

Plural count nouns do not require a determiner (although they can be used with one):

• Dogs are popular pets.
• Those dogs are yours.

Count nouns cannot be preceded by much without change of meaning:

• Not much dog is eaten in the UK. – The word dog used here as a mass noun refers to dog meat not to an individual dog or dogs; compare with Not many dogs are eaten in the UK.

Mass nouns are singular in form. They cannot be made plural and cannot be preceded by singular quantifiers such as the numeral one (in their straightforward meaning). Thus water is a mass noun in most uses, as is shown by:

• Water is essential for life.
• *Waters are essential for life.
• *One water is enough. – Grammatical if it means e.g. one glass of water when it is used as a count noun.

They can also be characterized by their ability to be preceded by words like much.

• Much water is wasted.

When used with the the meaning is some known subset:

• The water is drinkable. – Not water in general but some subset of it.

Proper nouns cannot have their (morphological) number changed (without change of lexical meaning), thus York cannot become Yorks without change of meaning, nor can the Netherlands become the Netherland. (There are plural uses of singular proper nouns, e.g.

• There are several Johns in this room.
• A world full of many Calcuttas would be a disaster.

However the meaning has changed: Johns then means any person named John; Calcuttas then means cities like Calcutta.) Proper nouns cannot be preceded by words like much or many:

• *Much York is prone to flooding.
• *Many Netherlands is flat.

Usually the requirement for a determiner is reversed between count and proper nouns. Count nouns require a determiner in the singular and allow its omission in the plural. Most proper nouns require no determiner when morphologically singular and require a determiner when morphologically plural, thus:

• Amsterdam is in the Netherlands.
• *The Amsterdam is in Netherlands.

However, this is not a definitive test as there are semantically defined categories of proper nouns which behave differently, most notably the names of extended bodies of water (rivers, seas, oceans) which require a determiner although morphologically singular:

• The Humber is a river in Northern England. – *Humber is a river in Northern England. [This kind of oddity is what makes English hard to learn as a foreign language!]

Some nouns have more than one common use; the classification applies only to the use. Thus cake can be used as a mass noun as in

• I don't want too much cake

or as a count noun as in

• I don't want a cake.

Many (if not all) count nouns can sometimes be used as mass nouns in special cases, as in the example Not much dog is eaten in the UK. given above.

Non-prototypical proper nouns/noun phrases

The discussion of proper nouns/noun phrases above has used the clearest cases in English; those van Langendonck (2007) calls "prototypical proper names". However, there are also other noun phrases always recognized as proper names, which do not behave in this way. Thus both "white house" (meaning any white house) and "White House" (the US President's residence) require an article:

• The white house on the corner is the one you want. – We saw the White House when we visited Washington.
• *White house on the corner is the one you want. – *We saw White House when we visited Washington.

(Note the contrast between "Washington" and "White House".)

There appears to be no simple grammatical test for such proper names. One which has been suggested is their inability to allow insertions. Thus:

The white lodging house on the corner is the one you want. – *We saw the White Presidential House when we visited Washington.

The big rapidly flowing river came into view. – The rapidly flowing Big River came into view. – *The Big rapidly flowing River came into view.

However this test is of limited value. Firstly, it is complicated by phonological issues. In speech, the White House and a white house are distinguished by stress. The primary stress is on White in the first case and on house in the second. The same pattern is seen in a blackboard and a black board. One interpretation is that, in speech, White House is a single word, notwithstanding how it is conventionally written. The insertion test then reflects the normal indivisibility of words, not whether they are proper names. Secondly, the order of constituents of noun phrases in English is subject to some restrictions. For example, size normally precedes colour so that small white house is normal, *white small house is not. Hence insertion may fail because it would violate these restrictions.

In some cases, the insertion test may be suggestive if not definitive. Thus if Big River is the name of a specific river, it is acceptable to say The grey Big River came into view, as opposed to *The grey big river came into view which must normally be ordered as The big grey river came into view.

Only the semantic property of being countable but intentionally singular in reference seems to pick out non-prototypical proper names. Thus although there may be several Big Rivers (Rios Grandes), any particular singular use will refer to only one of them. However, this is a weak test, given that there is no definitive account of "reference" as discussed below.

Semantic tests?

Is it possible to use semantic tests for what should count as a proper name? Unfortunately, this is a hugely disputed area of philosophy. As the article Proper name (philosophy) rightly says "The problem of defining proper names, and of explaining their meaning, is one of the most recalcitrant in modern analytical philosophy." Sadly, as of April 2014, the article is very incomplete and doesn't explain why. (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good account at Names.) Part of the problem is the concept of an "individual thing": some such definition as "a proper name refers to an individual entity or set of entities" is often proposed. However, it's not clear what counts as an individual entity. Geographical entities are distributed in space and often have imprecise boundaries (which branches are part of the same named river? where exactly do the Himalayas end?). Constructed entities, such as buildings or towns, vary in time: is the London of 1500 the same London as now? Names such as Atlantis refer to non-existent entities. And so on.

Usually, but not always, some semantic distinctions do correspond to the grammatical ones outlined above. However, this is not always the case, particularly where proper noun phrases are abbreviated. Thus if I say I am in Central Park, Central Park behaves as a proper noun phrase – although singular in morphology it does not require a determiner. If I abbreviate this to I am in the Park, I mean by Park the same specific park and may show this by capitalizing the word (although there is an increasing tendency in English not to capitalize in this context). However, now a determiner is needed: I cannot say *I am in Park. Hence grammatically, Park here behaves as a count noun although semantically it is (or could be) an elliptical reference to a proper noun phrase.

English names of species

Note: in this section I have consistently capitalized the English names of species because it's helpful in making clear what is being discussed; nothing else should be read into the use of this style here.

Are the English names of species proper names? The grammatical evidence is complex.

Some such names sometimes behave grammatically like prototypical proper names in being able to be used without a determiner, e.g.

Dog's Mercury is an indicator of ancient woodland. [Actual example from a British source which capitalizes.]

However, this seems to be because Dog's Mercury is treated as a mass noun. Individual plants aren't meant, but rather the species as a whole, i.e. as a kind of plant. Dog's Mercuries is not appropriate in this context (and doesn't seem to be used). Note that "much" can be used with such names, which is characteristic of mass nouns:

There's too much Dog's Mercury in this woodland.

There's thus no grammatical evidence that such names behave grammatically as proper names.

Other English species names behave more like typical count noun phrases, being most often used with a determiner in the singular and without in the plural:

The Bluebell is an indicator of ancient woodland. – Bluebells are an indicator of ancient woodland.

?Bluebell is an indicator of ancient woodland.

The American Robin is a common bird. – American Robins are common birds.

?American Robin is a common bird.

"Many" can be used, as is characteristic of count nouns phrases:

Many American Robins were seen.

There are now many Spanish Bluebells in English gardens.

This behaviour strongly suggests that such species names are count noun phrases, not proper names. Ironically, in view of the discussion in Wikipedia, this seems to apply particularly to the English names of birds. A quick review of both my bird books and Wikipedia articles about birds suggests that use in the singular without a determiner is rare and use in the plural is relatively common. In the American Robin article, for example, all the uses of American Robin as the main noun phrase use a determiner.

Could English species names be non-prototypical proper names?

As noted above, American Robin is almost always used in the singular with a determiner, typical of a count noun or a non-prototypical proper name like White House. So is it possible to argue that uses of American Robin or Spanish Bluebell parallel those of White House? The insertion test supports the interpretation of these as a proper names, but as noted above, it is a weak test.

The main objection is that these species names are regularly used in the plural, unlike White House. It could be argued that in The American Robin is a common bird, American Robin is a non-prototypical proper name referring to an individual species, whereas in American Robins are common birds, American Robins is a count noun phrase. There doesn't seem to be a grammatical counter-argument to this position, but it relies on a not particularly convincing distinction between singular and plural uses of the species name, and, more importantly, on a disputed philosophical view of species as individuals.

The most plausible conclusion is that the English names of species are used either as count nouns/noun phrases (like American Robin) or as mass nouns/noun phrases (like Dog's Mercury).

What has this to do with capitalization?

Not much is my answer. Rules for capitalization in any given language or dialect are in principle quite independent of noun classes. German capitalizes all nouns. Names of months (clearly proper nouns by the tests described above) are capitalized in some languages but not others. Semantically there seems little difference between the name of a month and the name of a season, yet contemporary English always capitalizes the first and increasingly less so the second. In contemporary English some proper noun phrases (such as page 125 referring to a specific page in a specific book) are generally no longer capitalized although they used to be. Acronyms for noun phrases are often capitalized even if the full phrase is not. Specialist sources use capitalization to make semantic distinctions independent of noun class. Thus in a botanical work flora refers collectively to all the plants found in a location (as in the flora of the US) where as Flora refers to a work which lists all the plants (as in Several Floras fail to list this species), so that a sentence like the following is not ambiguous between the two meanings of the word: It's not in the Flora. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants always capitalizes Group in the sense of "cultivar group" but not in any other sense.

Brand names are another clear example of the conventional nature of capitalization. Grammatically many are common nouns obeying all the expected rules. Thus when "Honda" = "Honda car/automobile", it behaves as a count noun:

*I've got Honda – a determiner is required in the singular, as in I've got a Honda or My Honda is in the garage.

Hondas are common in the UK now – the plural is fine.

Others behave grammatically as mass nouns; thus like "water", "Coke" can be used as a mass noun or a count noun:

Too much Coke is bad for me – a mass noun as shown by "much".

Too many Cokes are bad for me – a count noun as shown by "many".

Capitalizing brand names is simply a convention. "Hoover" is a well-known example that in the UK moved from being a capitalized brand name to being an uncapitalized common noun and indeed verb: I'll hoover (meaning "I'll vacuum clean") is perfectly acceptable in the UK.

Capitalization is a convention, related to, but not wholly aligned with, the properness of nouns and noun phrases.