1) Lexicology, its object and aims of research.
L deals with the lexicon of a La, studies its development,
structure and use. This study can be oriented in many ways
towards the synchronic description of the vocabulary of a
particular La (certain historical level of La development);
towards the study of diachronic or historical processes and laws
which govern the development of the vocabulary (word
evolution & development); towards the comparative or
contrastive analysis of the lexicon of a particular La; towards
the research of the functional properties of the vocabulary units
etc.
The object of lexicology is lexicon, or L vocabulary. The
description of the lexicon can have applied purposes: the major
domains of application are the science of compiling
dictionaries, teaching Las, second La acquisition,
computerization.
Sharing its object with other linguistic disciplines lexicology
nevertheless concentrates on its own aspects of analysis: the
structure, semantics and function of the lexicon, thus forming a
special branch of linguistic science with its own aims, object of
research and its subject matter.
The aim of English Lexicology is the study and systematic
description of the vocabulary of Present-Day English (origin,
morph structures, world building means, meanings of E words,
standard variants of E).
4) The function of lexical units. Naming processes: causes, ways, types and results.
To solve the problem of the constituents of the lexicon we have to view it from the functional
dynamic point of view. The theory that discusses these problems is known as the theory of
naming (nomination, verbalization, i.e. giving a name to a class of objects, properties,
processes, events). The roots of the naming theory go as far back as ancient times.
The world changes, our knowledge of the world changes makin’ it an ever-present necessity,
a permanent cause for processes of naming to take place.
Together with our understanding of the world our emotional attitudes towards things, events,
or their properties may change thus creating a need for verbalization to express our changed
emotions. Types of causes for naming: 1) social (objective); 2) cognitive (epistemological);
3) psychological (emotional); 4) linguistic causes.
There exist universal ways to appease that hunger for names: Imitation (a name to an object,
event, property or a class of them is given by means of imitation of some property, usually,
the one which is connected with sound (to whisper, roar, bang, murmur in E or шуршать,
шептать, бормотать, etc. in Russian). The results of imitation naming processes pose a very
serious linguistic problem, namely, that of arbitrariness (своевольность), or conventionality
of a name. Коллектив складывается из индивидуумов, а индивиды воспринимают звуки
по разному (atishoo in E, апчхи in Russian).
Semantic derivation (Transfer of Things which seem to have no likeness are given the same
name). E.g. eye is a name for an organ of sight, and eyes of a potato, eye of a needle, the
eye of the tornado, etc., an eye of a peacock (a private eye): a detective. Though first it
appeared as the name of a human organ later on the name was transferred to other objects
and other spheres.
Word derivation (creation of novel names on the basis of names already existent in the word
stock, a most vivid example being word composition). A room – a living room, a bedroom, a
sitting room, a bathroom, a guest-room to express various function of rooms. Here we face
the same problem of arbitrariness: a living-room-гостиная, a bed-room-спальня.
Borrowing. No La is free of borrowings which (militia (L. military service), might come in
different ways, methods (directly or indirectly) and in different shapes (in the form of lexical
items, shaped according to the phonetic, grammatic norms of the La or in the form of
translation (vodka in E. Vodkas, malchiks, etc.), loans (Fr. tete a tete).
Types: Naming processes can be viewed on the basis of interrelations between units
created. Guided by this criterion primary and secondary naming units are distinguished, the
range of which in the naming process leads to differentiation between primary and
secondary types of verbalization or naming processes, direct or indirect types of
verbalization.
7) Typologies of meaning. Lexical and grammatical meaning.
It is more or less recognized that word-meaning is not homogeneous but is made up
of various components that combination and interrelation of which determine the
inner facet of the word. These components are usually described as types of
meaning. The 2 main types of meaning that are readily observed are the
grammatical and lexical meanings to be found in words and word-forms.
1) Lex. (the component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, i.e.
recurrent in all the forms of this word, without reference to any sentence in which the
word may occur: go, goes, went, going, gone denote the process of movement) –
Gram (the component of meaning recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of
different words, as, e.g., the tense meaning in the word-forms of verb or the case
meaning in the word-forms of various nouns);
2) Denotative (conceptual, cognitive); how the “word” or lexeme is related to the
outside world; refers to the total sum of its referents (“chair” denotes every chair that
has ever existed or ever will exist) – Connotative (what the word or expression
suggests to the individual when he uses or hears it).
3) Affective (reflected in the personal feelings of the speaker, including his attitude to
the listener, or his attitude to something he is talking about. This is often conveyed
through the denotative and connotative content of the words employed. Will you shut
up! [Anger]) – Stylistic (social; what is communicated of the social circumstances of
La use; domicile - residence - abode - home).
4) Collocative (what is communicated through association with words which tend to
occur in the environment of another word. “Pretty” and “handsome” share common
meaning of “good-looking” but differ because of the nouns with which they co-occur:
pretty girl, flower, village; handsome man, car, vessel) – Thematic (communicated by
the way in which a speaker or writer organizes the message—in terms of order and
emphasis; achieved by paraphrase: “A man is waiting in the hall.” - “There is a man
waiting in the hall.” Or by lexicon: “He owns a tobacco shop.” - “The tobacco shop
belongs to him.”)
5) Intended (the meaning that is in the mind of the speaker or writer) - Interpreted
(the meaning that is conveyed to the mind of the listener when the message is
received).
2) Lexical units: their properties and specific features.
A La system comprises several types of units the total of which form levels within the La.
They are: sentences, or utterances (the communicative, syntactic level), words (the lexical
level), morphemes (the morphological level), phonemes (the phonological level).
The major concern of lexicology is the subsystem of lexicon. The lexicon is not restricted to
words only but contains morphemes and certain types of word combinations and sentences.
All the LU’s except phonemes R multi-faceted ones, characterized at least by 2 features:
meaning and form (Rule 1). Thus the phonemes R ousted out of the voc as they don’t bear
any signification but fulfil only a differentiating fun-n, signalling by the differences in sound
form the existence of sense diff-ces and never defining what the differences in meanings are.
Another possible approach to delimit the lexicon is based on the communicative role and
performance in communication. In the process of communication words and morphemes R
used as ready-made units (Rule 2). They are generated into utterances in order to express
our thoughts, attitudes and emotions. The majority of utterances are novel, and though they
are perfectly comprehensible it is extremely unlikely that people have ever heard or seen
them before, as they are produced by the speakers under the impact of an infinite number of
communication situations in which a speech act takes place.
There are also exist fixed expre-s, greetings, proverbs, sayings, quotations which are
sentences in structure but are reproduced often in speech as fixed, non-variable set
expressions which are word-combinations in form. Thus the lexicon must include not only
words & morphemes, but also ready-made word combinations & utt-ces.
Acc to the 2 rules in order to delimit the vocabulary we cannot limit the lexicon to words and
morphemes only. On the basis of the two criteria chosen and discussed above the lexicon of
a La must necessarily include words, morphemes, ready-made word combinations and
utterances, thus becoming a system of various types of lexical units.
The properties: dynamic character of the vocabulary with its dialectic interrelationship of
stability, permanence and constant change; the stability & the established character of the
voc, on the one hand, & its openness as a system to which new items can be easily added.
The count of LU is impossible because of the never-ending process of change of the lexicon.
The count of the number of LU in the voc is also impossible due to constant flow of lex items
out of the pres-day word stock. A great number of names become obsolete and obsolescent.
It concerns the processes of identifying lexical units as one word or expression or as different
ones and thus describing them as individual non-identical items (homonyms) or uniting them
as forms of one polysemantic unit. It also concerns the procedure of drawing a rigid enough
line between a compound word and a free word combination
3) The description of the lexicon in generative grammar.
Generative grammar is an approach to the study of La that is based on ideas that
Noam Chomsky (Am linguist) first raised in the 1950s. The basic idea is that La has a
structure that is complicated but has mathematical regularity. In the generative
tradition grammar embraces the whole of the La system: elements, sets of rules and
conditions that allow people to speak and understand a La. Grammar in this sense
consists of Phonetics, or articulation and perception of speech sounds, Phonology or
patterning of speech sounds, Morphology, or word formation, Syntax, or sentence
formation and Semantics or interpretation of words and sentences.
The 1st version of this Grammar as construed by Chomsky consisted of the syntactic
component, phonological component, semantics and the transformational component
the rules of which were to map the generated structures onto the surface, i.e.
phonetic level. The lexicon happens to be a list of units introduced at a definite
syntactic level. The lexicon had no place in the grammar and constituted merely a list
of ready-made units each of which was assigned some categorial and sub-categorial
features, like Countable/Uncountable, Animate/Unanimate for nouns,
Transitive/Intransitive for verbs, etc. The lexicon happens to be a list of units
introduced at a definite syntactic level. 1960 saw the rise of dissident theories: with
the publication of N.Chomsky’s Notes on Nominalization and R. Lees’s “The
Grammar of English Nominalizations”. The first became the manifesto of the lexicalist
approach to the lexicon, the other – of the transformation list approach.
The main idea of the lexicalist treatment of the lexicon is that due to the
idiosyncratic nature of complex lexical units (cf. worker, writer, transmission etc.
which develop specific senses not predicted by the rules of their formation) or
admission, permission, the phonological forms of which turn to be specific as
alternating with compared to split-splitting, sit-sitting, the whole lexicon should be
entered into the generative model in the form of a list. The gist of the
transformationalist approach lies in the fact that a great number of lexical units are
patterned according to some derivation rules, which are very much similar to
syntactic rules. This allows a more economical treatment of the lexicon where
complex units are generated on the basis of simple forms via rules of derivation while
non-derived forms and rules are presented in the form of a list.
5) Motivated and non-motivated lexical units.
There are cases when we can observe a direct connection
between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning. This
relationship between morphemic structure and meaning is termed
morphological motivation.
The application of naming techniques, which bring about the
existence of complex or derived units of various types results in
the creation of 2 radically different groups of lexical units:
1. Motivated: If we can observe a direct connection between
the structural pattern of the word and its meaning, we say that this
word is motivated. Consequently words such as singer, rewrite,
eatable, etc., are described as motivated. The semantics of those
units is deducible with the help of their components. It is
transparent enough, like in: theatergoer, or childish, or
gentlemanlike.
2. Non-motivated (arbitrary signs), the form of which gives no
clue as to their meaning. If the connection between the structure
of the lexical unit and its meaning is completely arbitrary and
conventional, we speak of non-motivated or idiomatic words, e.g.
matter, repeat.These units have to be learnt and remembered by
speaker and hearer.
The lexicon of any La, English being no exception, consists
mainly of motivated names, which enables the speaker and the
hearer find a necessary form to encode one’s thoughts and gives
the key to relating accurate decoding of our speech. Names appear
as motivated units. They can become demotivated (blackboard –
not necessarily black). However, 70% preserve their motivated
character.
6) The word as the basic lexical unit.
Word is the most typical, central 2-faceted ready-made lexical unit and it is
most easily apprehended psychologically and perceptually. Even illiterate
people may dictate the text 'word by word'. No adequate definition of a
word is available so far.
As George Miller put it, "definitions always leak at the margins" , and it is
hardly possible to give any single definition of such complicated
phenomenon as a word. Segmentation into words includes many strategies,
phonetic and semantic, morphological and syntactic. The use of only one of
them may lead to different results.
A word may consist of one morpheme (bag) or several of them attached by
special derivation (word-formation) rules specific for each language (antide-mobit-iz-ing feel- Mg-s). Sometimes segmenting a word into morphemes
is not easy, but understanding the word as the central lexical unit avoids the
problem of 'locating' morphosyntactic categories fused in one form.
The term word is ambiguous. Different grammatical forms, like go and went
are also referred to as words (as in 'the word go or the word went'). That is
why instead of ambiguous term word it is more convenient and preferable to
use the term lexeme that unites different gramm forms of a word. When we
look up words in a dictionary we are looking up lexemes rather than words
(the lexeme go). And yet the term word is often used in lexicology to name
a central lexical unit and we shall use the term lexeme, the key term for
lexicology, synonymically with the term word.
The biggest ready-made 2-faceted lexical unit is called a set expression, it
is made up of at least 2 words, or lexemes, and the meaning of each is
different from the meaning of the complex unit {red tape, baker's dozen).
Morphemes are the smallest lexical units, and phraseological units, or
idioms, are the largest ones.
Word, unlike morpheme, is an autonomous two-faceted ready-made lexical
unit, and can be used in isolation to perform a naming function. Unlike an
idiom, a word is the smallest autonomous two-faceted ready-made unit with
a naming function that makes it the basic lexical unit.
8) The essence of meaning. The referential approach.
Lex-gy deals with words, word-forming morphemes (derivational affixes) and word-groups or
phrases. All these ling units may be said to have meaning of some kind: they are all significant and
therefore must be investigated both as to form and meaning. The branch of lexicology that is
devoted to the study of meaning is known as Semasiology.
Meaning is one of the most controversial terms in the theory of language. At first sight the
understanding of this term seems to present no difficulty at all. The scientific definition of meaning
however just as the definition of some other basic linguistic terms, such as word. sentence, etc.,
has been the issue of interminable discussions.
There are broadly speaking two schools to Meaning of thought in present-day linguistics
representing the main lines of contemporary thinking on the problem: the referential approach,
which seeks to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing the interdependence between
words and the things or concepts they denote, and the functional approach, which studies the
functions of a word in speech and is less concerned with what meaning is than with how it works.
All major works on semantic theory have so far been based on referential concepts of meaning.
The essential feature of this approach is that it distinguishes between the 3 components closely
connected with meaning: the sound-form of the ling sign, the concept underlying this sound-form,
and the actual referent, i.e. that part or that aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers. The
best known referential model of meaning is the so-called “basic triangle” which, with some
variations, underlies the semantic systems of all the adherents of this school of thought.
Some linguists regard meaning as the interrelation of the 3 points of the triangle, Others proceed
from the basic assumption of the objectivity of language and meaning and understand the ling sign
as a two-facet unit. They view meaning as “a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena
or relations that makes part of the linguistic sign — its so-called inner facet, whereas the soundform functions as its outer facet.” The outer facet of the ling sign is indispensable to meaning and
intercommunication. Meaning is to be found in all ling units and together with their sound-form
constitutes the linguistic signs studied by ling science.
The referential definition of meaning can hardly be applied to semantic additions that come to the
surface in the process of communication, e. g. "That's very clever " may mean different sorts of
things including that it is not clever at all. It has also been stated that the referential approach fails
to account for that fact that one word may denote different objects & phenomena. That is the case
of polysemy. On the other hand one & the same object may be denoted by different words & that
is the case of synonymy. Problems for the referential approach is (a) not all the linguistic
expressions have reference; (b) nominals like a unicorn, will never have a reference; (c) no one-toone correspondence for referring expressions: names, definite descriptions, etc.; and (d) two
expressions can refer to the same individual, but with meaning differences, i.e. different senses.
9) The essence of meaning. The functional approach.
By definition Lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes (derivational affixes)
and word-groups or phrases. All these linguistic units may be said to have meaning of
some kind: they are all significant and therefore must be investigated both as to form and
meaning. The branch of lexicology that is devoted to the study of meaning is known as
Semasiology.
Meaning is one of the most controversial terms in the theory of language. At first sight the
understanding of this term seems to present no difficulty at all.
There are broadly speaking two schools to Meaning of thought in present-day linguistics
representing the main lines of contemporary thinking on the problem: the referential
approach, which seeks to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing the
interdependence between words and the things or concepts they denote, and the
functional approach, which studies the functions of a word in speech and is less
concerned with what meaning is than with how it works.
Proceeding from the assumptions that the true meaning of a word is to be found by
observing what a man does with it not what he says about it, the proponents of
functional approach to meaning define it as the use of the word in the La. It has been
suggested that the meaning of a word is revealed by substituting different contexts.
e. g. The meaning of the word cat may be singled out of contexts: __ catch mice. I
bought fish for my __. and similar sentences.
To get a better insight in to the semantics of a word it is necessary to analyze as
many contexts in which it is realized as possible. In practice a scholar is guided by
intuition which amount to the previous knowledge of the notions the given word
denotes. Besides, there are contexts which are so infrequent that they can hardly be
registered & quite obviously they have never been met by the speakers of the given
La. Nevertheless being presented with a context a native speaker proceeds not from
a list of possible contexts but from something else. The functional approach to
meaning is important because it emphasizes the fact that words are seldom if ever
used in isolation & thus the meaning of a word is revealed only when it is realized in
a context. But on the whole the functional approach may be described as a
complimentary, additional to the referential one. Minus – it tells us that the meaning
is different or the same, but it doesn’t tell what the meaning is.
28) The derivation device: zero-derivation, non-affixal word
formation, conversion, morphological, syntactic, morphologicalsyntactic way of word formation.
Zero-derivation – the way of word building without use of special
derivational affixes; type of transposition when the transition of a word
takes place when one word is used without any changing as a
representative of another class of words (salt – to salt).
Non-affixal way of forming words or Root formation is when a
certain stem is used for the formation of a different word of a different
part of speech without a derivational affix being added (to sing —
song; to feed — food; full — to fill).
Conversion is in a way misleading as actually nothing is converted:
the original word continues its existence alongside the new 1. The term
conversion refers to the numerous cases of phonetic identity of wordforms, primarily the so-called initial forms, of two words belonging to
different parts of speech. This may be illustrated by the following
cases: work — to work; love — to love; paper — to paper; brief — to
brief, etc. As a rule we deal with simple words, although there are a
few exceptions, e.g. wireless — to wireless.
Functional change (syntactic approach) implies that the process in
question concerns usage, not word-formation. Accepting the term
functional change 1 must admit that 1 & the same word can belong 2
several parts of speech simultaneously, which contradicts the basic
definition of a word as a system of forms
Conversion as morphological way of word formation (Smirnitsky): c.
is defined as a non-affixal, & its characteristic feature is that a certain
stem is used 4 the formation of a categorically different word without a
derivational affix being added. Conversion is widespread in E due 2
the absence of morphological elements serving as formal signs
marking the part of speech 2 which the word belongs.
27) Love – to love, to run - a run: A way of derivation or a
functional shift?
Conversion is especially productive in the formation of verbs
(can – to can? Phone – to phone), but not all the verbs were
created this way. Some of’em arose as a result of disappearance
of inflexions in the course of historical development of E due 2
which 2 words of different parts of speech coincided in
pronunciation (love – to love (OE lufian). That’s why some
scientists distinguish between homonymous word-pairs which
appeared as a result of the loss of inflections & those formed by
conversion. Conversion is applied 2 the pairs which came into
existence after the inflections disappeared. Others discriminate
between conversion as a derivational means & as a type of
word-building relations between words in ME. Taking in
consideration this idea love – to love is also a case of
conversion or zero derivation (способ словообразования без
использования спец словообразовательных аффиксов).
31) Semantic relations in conversion pairs and their
propositional basis.
Semantic relations between conversion pairs: verbs,
converted from nouns (if the noun refers 2 some object of
reality, the converted verb may denote: 1) action characteristic
of the object (ape n – ape v – imitate in a foolish way), 2)
instrumental use of the object (whip – to whip – strike with a
whip), 3) acquisition or addition of the object (fish – to fish –
catch fish), 4) deprivation of the object (dust – to dust – remove
dust from smt); nouns, converted from verbs (the verb refers 2
an action, the noun may denote: 1) instance of the action (to
jump – jump – sudden spring from the ground), 2) agent of the
action (to help – help – smb who helps), 3) place of the action
(to walk – walk – a place 4 walking), 4) object or result of the
action (to find – find – smt found).
30) Derivative relations in conversion and criteria of their directionality.
Поскольку происходящие при конверсии словообразовательные процессы
не имеют каких-либо специальных морфологических показателей и
формирование возможно как глаголов от существительных, так и сущ от
глаг, установление направления отношений словообразовательной
производности при конверсии, кот. вследствие своего немаркированного
характера именуются семантической производностью, - далеко не
праздный вопрос. Решается он с помощью ряда критериев: 1) кр.
содержания (установление направления внутренней производности путем
выявления семантической зависимости одного слова от другого: глаг knife
описывается через сущ, в то время, как сущ knife для своего
семантического анализа не требует ссылки к глаг knife). Сем. зависимость
ощущается носителями языка интуитивно. 2) кр. сем.
противоположности, возникающей между лексич. знач. корневой
морфемы и лекс-грам знач. основы у производных слов и отсутствующей
у производящих. 3) словообразовательный критерий (основан на
взаимосвязи слов внутри словообразовательного гнезда и учете характера
производности деривативов первой ступени в словообразовательном
гнезде. Если большинство из них являются отыменными производными,
то сущ, соотносящееся по конверсии с глаг в данном гнезде, непроизводно
(awe – простое слово, а глаг awe – производное, что подсказывается
отыменным характером др. производных aweless, awful). 4) кр. типовых
сем. отношений по конверсии (маркирующий признак деривата – его
значение. Производные по конверсии сущ и глаг развивают опред. типы
значений: отыменные глаг – такие знач., как действовать с пом. того, что
обозначается исх. сущ, помещать в место, кот. обозначено исх. сущ,
лишать того, что им обознач; отглаг сущ – единичное действие, место
действия, объект/результат действия. 5) кр. ограниченного употребления
(слово, не столь употребительное, как соотносящаяся с ним единица
другой части речи, явл. производным: глаг author – более ограниченная
сфера употребл., чем сущ author, и, следовательно, образован от него). 6)
наличие стилистических примет (to anger от anger).
29. zero derivation: adjec-tion, substan-tion, occasional conversion, root formation.
Zero-derivation – the way of word building without use of special derivational affixes;
Substantivation is a gradual process: adjs are first only partially substantivized and for a
long time can be modified by an adverb like regular adjs but not Ns (the extravagantly
jealous man). In contrast to conversion substantivation is limited to a certain class of
words: human beings (the poor, the black, a creative, a criminal) and some abstract
concepts (the impossible, the Present).
Adjectivization – the use of nouns and participles as adjs. E nouns are commonly used
in an attributive fun-n (a stone wall) but not all of them are adjs yet. The nominal character
of many premodifiers is proved by their correspondence to prepositional phrases with the
noun as the compliment (a love poem “a poem about love”) that can hardly be possible
for real attributive adjs like a long poem. Many adjs have the same form as participles
(surprising, offended), though only some of participles may be considered as converted
into adjs (*reading, *departed). The impossibility of using the intensifier “very” with these
words (very surprising but not *very departed) indicates that they are not adjs.
Occasional conversion. Traditional conversion refers to the accepted use of words
which are recorded in dictionaries, e.g. to age, to cook, to love, to look, to capture, etc.
The occasional use of conversion is also very frequent; verbs and adjs are converted
from nouns or vice versa for the sake of bringing out the meaning more vividly in a given
context only. In modE usage we find a great number of cases of occasional conversion,
e.g. How am I to preserve the respect of fellow-travellers, if I'm to be Billied at every turn?
Root-formation is when a certain stem is used for the formation of a different word of a
different part of speech without a derivational affix being added: Sound-interchange in E is
often combined with a difference in the paradigm. 3 types of relations should be distinguished:
1)breath—to breathe: sound-interchange distinguishes only between words, it does not
differentiate word-forms of one and the same word. It has no relation to the paradigms of the
words. 2)song—to sing: the vowel in song interchanges with 3 diff vowels, the latter
interchanging with one another in the forms of the verb to sing: song differs from to sing
(sang, sung) not only in the paradigm. Its root-vowel does not occur in the word-forms of the
verb and vice versa. 3)house—to house: sound-interchange distinguishing the 2 words (v & n)
is the same as that which distinguishes the word-forms of the noun, house [haus] —
houses [hauziz] and to house [hauz] — houses [hauziz].
34. Motivation and variability of word combinations.
Wordgroups may be described through the order and arrangement of the component
members. All word-groups may be analysed by criterion of distribution into 2 big classes.
In endocentric word-groups the central component that has the same distribution as the
whole group is clearly the dominant member or the head to which all other members of
the group are subordinated. In the word-group red flower the head is the N flower. It
follows that word-groups may be classified acc to their headwords into nominal groups
or phrases (red flower), adjectival groups (kind to people), verbal groups (to speak well).
The head is not necessarily the component that occurs first in the word-group.
Word-groups are also classified acc to their syntactic pattern into predicative and nonpredicative groups. Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided acc to the type of
syntactic relations between the components into subordinative and coordinative.
Such word-groups as red flower, a man of wisdom are subordinative because the words
red and of wisdom are subordinated to flower and man respectively and function as their
attributes. Such phrases as women and children, day and night, do or die are
coordinative.___Word-groups like words may also be analysed from the point of view of
their motivation. Word-groups may be described as lexically motivated if the combined
lexical meaning of the groups is deducible from the meaning of their components. The
nominal groups, red flower, heavy weight and the verbal group, take lessons, are from
this point of view motivated, whereas structurally identical word-groups red tape, heavy
father, and take place are lexically non-motivated. Word-groups are structurally motivated
if the meaning of the pattern is deducible from the order and arrangement of the
member-words of the group. Red flower, is motivated as the meaning of the pattern
quality — substance can be deduced from the order and arrangement of the words red
and flower, whereas the seemingly identical pattern red tape cannot be interpreted as
quality — substance.____The degree of motivation may be different. For ex, the degree
of lexical motivation in the nominal group black market is higher than in black death, “but
lower than in black dress, though none of the groups can be considered as completely
non-motivated. It should also be noted that seemingly identical word-groups are
sometimes found to be motivated or non-motivated depending on their semantic
interpretation. Thus apple sauce, is lexically and structurally motivated when it means ‘a
sauce made of apples’ but when used to denote ‘nonsense’ it is clearly non-motivated. In
such cases we may even speak of homonymy of word-groups and not of polysemy.
33) Factors of government and binding words into phrases. Lexical and
grammatical valency.
Words R used in certain lexical contexts. The aptness of a word 2 appear in
various combinations is described as its lexical valency. The range of the LV
of words is linguistically delimited by inner structure of the E word-stock,
which can B easily observed in the choice of synonyms found in different
word-groups (lift & raise – raise a question, not lift). There’s a certain norm
of LV of each word & any departure from this norm is felt as stylistic device.
Words habitually collocated in speech tend 2 constitute cliché (the verb put
forward & the noun question R habitually collocated, they constitute a
habitual word-group). The LV of correlated words in different langs is not
identical (thin hair – жидкий волос). The LV & polysemy of word-groups R
interrelated: 1) the restrictions of LV of words may B manifested in the
choice of the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups
(heavy may B combined with the words food, meals in the meaning difficult 2
digest), 2) different meanings of a word may B described through the LV of
the word (different meanings of the word heavy may B described thru the
word-groups heavy weight, heavy snow, heavy drinker.
Words R also used in gram. contexts. The minimal gram context in which the
words R used when brought together 2 form word-groups – the pattern of the
word-group. The aptness 2 appear in specific gram structures – grammatical
valency. It may B different. Its range is delimited by the part of speech the
word belongs 2 (adj can B followed by a noun, by the infinitive of a verb, etc
but not by the finite form of a verb), by the inner structure of the lang
(suggest & propose – both can B followed by a noun, only propose can B
followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose 2 do smt), by comparing the
GV of correlated words in different langs (influence (v) can B combined only
with a noun, whereas Russian влиять – only with a prepositional group:
влиять на к-л). Any departure from the norm would make the word-group
unintelligible 2 English speakers. Individual meanings of a polysemantic
word may also B described thru its GV (keen – keen sight (keen + n), keen
on (keen + on + n), keen to know (keen + v).
32. A compound word - a free word combination - a
phraseological unit. Problems of boundaries and criteria.
Compounding or word-composition is one of the productive
types of word-formation in Modern English. Composition like
all other ways of deriving words has its own peculiarities as to
the means used, the nature of bases and their distribution, as to
the range of application, the scope of semantic classes and the
factors conducive to productivity.
Compounds, as has been mentioned elsewhere, are made up of
two ICs which are both derivational bases. Compound words
are inseparable vocabulary units. They are formally and
semantically dependent on the constituent bases and the
semantic relations between them which mirror the relations
between the motivating units. The ICs of compound words
represent bases of all three structural types. 1 The bases built on
stems may be of different degree of complexity as, e.g., weekend, office-management, postage-stamp, aircraft-carrier,
fancy-dress-maker, etc. However, this complexity of structure
of bases is not typical of the bulk of Modern English
compounds.
10) The behaviouristic and cognitive approaches to meaning.
In the behavioral semantics proposed by Bloomfield the
meaning of a linguistic form was defined as the situation in
which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth
in the hearer. Bloomfield's theory of meaning was affected by
his assumptions: his insistence on studying La in the manner of
the natural sciences, beginning with formal features such as the
phoneme and realizing a La as a reified object; his disavowal of
linguistic performance and individual variation as a significant
aspect in La science; his insistence that linguists be completely
objective in their approach, withholding their intuitions in
studying La "without prepossessions"; and his assumption that a
successful analysis is even possible through purely objective
observation. This approach doesn’t give any more or less
satisfying definition of meanin’. The diversity of linguistic
forms arising outta one & the same situation and serving as a
verbal stimulus directed at the listener & the diversity of
responses make the theory very vulnerable. Quite another view
on meaning is advocated by the prototype theory as a branch of
cognitive semantics (Rosch (1973). Here, meanings are
identified, often pictorially, by characteristic instances of
whatever class of objects, etc. a word denotes: Thus, a
prototypical instance of a bird would be a sparrow rather than a
penguin. In this sense, the denotation of a word is equated with
its prototype. Consequently, in contrast to truth-conditional
approaches, an essential claim of prototype theories is that
denotations have no precise limits.
13) Sem ambiguity. Polysemy versus homonymy. Criteria and ling frequency.
Ambiguity arises when a single word or string of words is associated with more than
1 meaning. 2 diff-t types of ambiguity can B distinguished on the basis of what is
causing it: lex ambiguity (arises when a word has multiple meanings) and structural
ambiguity (2 or more different syntactic structures can B assigned 2 1 string of
words. The expression «old men and women» is structurally ambiguous ‘coz it has
the following 2 structural analyses: old [men and women] - [old men] and women).
Ambiguous expressions that R not structurally ambiguous display lexical ambiguity.
The word «polysemy» means «plurality of meanings» it exists only in the La, not in
speech. A word with more than 1 meaning is called polysemantic. Different meanings
of a polysemantic word may come together due to the proximity of notions which they
express. E.g. the word «blanket» has the following meanings: a woolen covering
used on beds, a covering for keeping a horse warm, a covering of any kind /a blanket
of snow/, covering all or most cases /used attributively/, e.g. we can say «a blanket
insurance policy». Homonyms R words different in meaning but identical in sound or
spelling, or both.1 of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the borderline
between P. & H. (between different meanings of 1 word & the meanings of 2
homonymous words). If H. is viewed diachronically then all cased of sound
convergence of 2 or mo’ words may B regarded as H. Synchronically the
differentiation is based on the semantic criterion: if a connection between various
meanings is apprehended, these R 2 B considered as making up the semantic
structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it’s H., not P. But this criterion isn’t
reliable as various meanings of the same word & the meanings of 2 or mo’ words
may B comprehended as synchronically unrelated; some of the meanings of lexicogrammatical h. arising from conversion R related (paper (n) – paper (v), so this
criterion can’t B applied 2 a large group of homonyms. ‘times different meanings of 1
word have stable relationships which R not found between the meanings of 2 h. It
can B seen in metaphoric meanings of one word (loud voice – loud colors). These
semant. relationships R indicative of P. When homonymic words belong 2 different
parts of speech they differ not only in their semantic structure but also in their
syntactic function & distribution (paper (n, can B preceded by the article & followed
by a verb) – paper (v, is never found in such distribution). In lexical homonymy there
R cases when none of the criteria can B applied.
16) Morphology as the study of language forms. Inflexional vs.
Derivational Morphology.
Morphology – the study of morphemes of a La of the way in which they
R joined 2 make words. An understanding of word-formation is necessary
for the study of La change, grammar. Words consist of 1 or more
morphemes. The basic definition of a morpheme is 'the smallest
meaningful unit of La'. Many words consist of just 1 morpheme (cat,
mouse, cattle). They can’t B broken down into any smaller units of
meaning. Words like catty, catfish, moused, cows on the other hand can B
broken down into smaller units of meaning: cat + -ty, where cat refers 2
the animal & -ty 2 the property of being like the animal. A word might
easily consist of 1 syllable & 2 morphemes (eats) or 2 syllables & 1
morpheme (cattle).
Free morphemes can stand alone. Bound morphemes can only occur when
joined on 2 another bound morpheme or 2 a free morpheme. Cat is a free
morpheme because it occurs alone in a sentence: Please feed my cat. -ty is
a bound morpheme because it can only occur when joined on to a free
morpheme like cat. It is traditional 2 distinguish inflexions from
derivations. Inflexions R the different forms of verbs & nouns used 2 mark
grammatical meanings such as tense, number and case. (He reads a book,
the verb read is inflected by adding a morpheme to show third person
singular. This morpheme is realised in speech by the sound /z/, & shown
in writing by -s). Derivations R new words which R formed by adding
meaning through affixes 2 other words. This usually has the effect of
changing the word class. (the verb read can have the suffix -able added 2
form the adjective readable, which in turn can have the prefix un- added 2
form another adjective unreadable, which, possibly, could have the suffix
-ness added 2 form the noun unreadableness). Such additions R known as
derivational morphemes, either prefixes or suffixes.
Both inflexional & derivational morphemes R bound. Free morphemes
can’t B inflexional or derivational. Where a word is formed by adding 1
free morpheme 2 another: catfish, the process is known as compounding
14) Homonymy. Types of homonyms.
Homonyms R words different in meaning but identical in sound or spelling, or both.
Classifications. Walter Skeat classified h. acc. to their spelling and sound forms three groups: perfect h. (identical in sound and spelling: «school» - «косяк рыбы» &
«школа»); homographs (words with the same spelling but pronounced differently:
«bow» -/bau/ - «поклон» and /bou/ - «лук»); homophones (pronounced identically
but spelled differently: «night» - «ночь» and «knight» - «рыцарь»).
Smirnitsky added 2 Skeat’s clas-n 1 mo’ criterion: grammatical meaning. Subdivided
the group of perfect h. into 2 types: perfect (identical in their spelling, pronunciation
and grammar form: «spring» - the season of the year, a leap, a source), &
homoforms (coincide in their spelling & pronunciation but have different grammatical
meaning: «reading» - Present Participle, Gerund, Verbal noun, to lobby – lobby).
A more detailed classi-n – Arnold: classified only perfect h. & suggested 4 criteria of
their classification: lexical meaning, grammatical meaning, basic forms and
paradigms. The following groups: a) homonyms identical in their grammatical
meanings, basic forms & paradigms & different in their lexical meanings («board» in
the meanings «a council» and « a piece of wood sawn thin»); b) homonyms identical
in their gram meanings & basic forms, different in their lexical meanings & paradigms
(to lie - lied - lied, & to lie - lay – lain); c) homonyms different in their lexical
meanings, grammatical meanings, paradigms, but coinciding in their basic forms
(«light» / «lights»/, «light» / «lighter», «lightest»/); d) homonyms different in their
lexical meanings, grammatical meanings, in their basic forms and paradigms, but
coinciding in one of the forms of their paradigms («a bit» and «bit» (from « to bite»).
In her classification there R also patterned homonyms (have a common component
in their lexical meanings). They are h. formed either by means of conversion, or by
levelling of grammar inflexions. They R different in their grammar meanings, in their
paradigms, identical in their basic forms («warm» - «to warm»). Here we can also
have unchangeable patterned homonyms which have identical basic forms, different
grammatical meanings, a common component in their lexical meanings («before» an
adverb, a conjunction, a preposition). There R also homonyms among unchangeable
words which R different in their lexical and grammatical meanings, identical in their
basic foms, e.g. « for» - «для» and «for» - «ибо».
17) The speaker – hearer approach to the analysis of the word structure:
morphemics vs. word formation.
With the help of ready verbal form the speaker names the object, & the hearer who
possesses the same language code easile decodes the information. Morphemic
analysis is limited 2 stating the number & type of morphemes making up the word
(girl(root morpheme + 1 or mo’ affixes) – ish – ness). A word formation analysis
studies the structural correlation with other words, the structural patterns or rules on
which words R built. This is done by means of the principle of opposition, by studying
the partly similar elements, the differences between which R functionally relevant.
Girl & girlish – members of morphemic opposition (similar as the root morpheme is
the same, the distinctive feature is the suffix –ish). This binary opposition comprises 2
elements. A correlation is a set of binary oppositions. It’s composed of 2 subsets
formed by the 1st & the 2nd elements of the opposition. Each element of the 1st set is
coupled with exactly 1 element of the 2nd set & vice versa. Each 2nd element may B
derived from the corresponding 1st element by a general rule valid 4 all members of
the relation. Child/childish = woman/womanish – observing this opposition we may
conclude that there’s in English a type of derived adj consisting of a noun stem & the
suffix –ish. Any word built acc. 2 this pattern contains a semantic component
common 2 the whole group (typical of, having bad qualities of). But there R cases
when the results of morphemic analysis & the structural word-formation analysis do
not coincide. The morphemic analysis is insufficient in showing difference between
the structure of inconvenience v & impatience n, classifying both as derivatives. From
the point of view of the 2nd approach they R different: inconvenience is a derivative
(impatience/impatient = patience/patient), inconvenience (v)/inconvenience (n) here
we deal with conversion. This approach also affords a possibility 2 distinguish
between compound words formed by composition & those formed by other
processes. Honeymoon (n) & honeymoon (v) R both compounds with 2 free stems,
but the 1st is formed by composition (honey + moon = honeymoon (n), the 2 nd – by
conversion (honeymoon (n) – honeymoon (v). Here it’s not the origin of the word is
established but its present correlations in the vocab & the patterns productive in the
present-day English.
12) Semantic derivation. Causes, types and functions.
Derivation - a major process of word formation, especially using affixes to produce new
words. Causes: 1) extralinguistic (various changes in the life of speech community,
changes of economic & social structure, changes of ideas, scientific concepts, way of life &
other spheres of human activities as reflected in word-meanings; Historical, Psychological
(taboo, euphemism (words (with neutral or positive) connotation, 2 veil painful concepts) problematic concepts avoided in speech, e.g. Death, disease, excretion, sex, neutral
designations for minorities (cripple, handicapped, black, coloured, African-American); 2)
linguistic (the commonest form which this influence takes is the so-called ellipsis (when in a
phrase made up of 2 words one of these is omitted & its meaning is transferred 2 its partner
(the Kremlin = советск пра-во (the Kremlin government), meaning of 1 word is transferred 2
another ‘coz they usually occur in speech together (daily = daily newspaper); discrimination
of synonyms (can B illustrated by the semantic development of a number of words: land in
OE meant both solid part of earth’s surface & the territory of a nation, in ME the word country
was borrowed as its synonym the meaning of land altered & the territory of a country came 2
B denoted by country); semantic analogy (if 1 of the membas of a synonymic group acquires
a new meaning other membas change their meaning too(verbs synonymous with catch
(grasp, get) acquired meaning “to understand”).
Types: generalization (shifting of a word from a more specific meaning to a more general
one: arrive (Fr rive = 'bank of a river, shore') - originally: 'arrive on shore, come to shore' then
'arrive, come to an undefined place'), specialization (narrowing; occurs when a word
originally referred to a broad category, but over time narrows in scope to refer only to a once
was what a subcategory: liquor originally meant any liquid), elevation (amelioration; the
connotation of a word may shift toward the positive: terrible), & pejoration (degradation; the
connotation of a word may shift toward the negative: silly meant happy, blessed), metaphor
(an implicit comparison is made by using a word with one meaning to stand for something
with a similar or analogous meaning. A word for something concrete and familiar is
metaphorically extended to refer to something abstract or less familiar: bright, brilliant – as
applied to intellect, the mouth of a river or a bottle, the eye of a needle or a hurricane, the
foot of a hill), metonymy (a similar substitution is made, but on the basis of contiguity rather
than similarity —a word with one meaning is used to stand for something connected or
related to that meaning: cash (Fr casse) originally a box or chest for keeping money; now the
money itself; the names of the organs of sense are often used metonymically to refer to the
senses, or to the exercise of them: an ear for music, catch someone’s eye).
Functions: makes lexicon consistent & continuous, it’s an efficient source for novel
meanings & leads 2 polysemy.
15) Patterned polysemy of lexical units in English.
Several types of polysemy occur so frequently that they should B
considered part of the grammatical knowledge of the speakers of a La.
First, we have count/mass alternations for nouns, which can serve
several functions: Animal/meat (The lamb is running in the field. John ate lamb for breakfast), Object/Stuff an object is made up (There
is an apple on the table. - There is apple in the salad), Stuff/Kind (
There was cheese on the table. - Three cheeses were served),
Stuff/Portions (The restaurant served beer, and so we ordered three
beers), Plant/food alternation (Mary watered the fig in the garden. Mary ate the fig), We have alternations between containers and
contained (Mary broke the bottle. - The baby finished the bottle),
Figure/Ground reversal (The window is rotting. - Mary crawled
through the window), Product/producer alternation (newspaper,
Honda: The newspaper fired its editor. - John spilled coffee on the
newspaper), Process/result alternation (The company’s merger with
Honda will begin next fall. - The merger will lead to the production of
more cars), Alternations involving location: Building/institution (
university, bank), Place/people (John traveled to New York. - New
York kicked the mayor out of office), Capital/government
(Washington accused Havana not to do enough for the victims).
Each polysemic word has its central meaning which is usually
understood without the context. All the other meanings R secondary &
we need context 2 understand them (yellow – color, yellow look
(envy). The context individualises the meaning & brings it out (lexical
c (the lexical meaning of the words of the context which surround the
given word) & gram c (the meaning of the word make as force is
possible only in the gr combination to make smb do smth. In another
combination it’ll have allegoric meaning (to become, to make a good
teacher)
18) The morpheme as the smallest meaningful unit.
Principles and methods of morphemic analysis.
Morpheme is the minimum meaningful La unit; it’s an
association of a meaning with a sound form but unlike words
morphemes R not independent & occur in speech only as
constituent parts of words; they can’t B divided into smaller
meaningful units. In most cases the morphemic structure of
words is transparent enough & individual morphemes clearly
stand out within’ the word. The segmentation of words is
carried out acc. 2 the method of Immediate & Ultimate
Constituents based on the binary principle – each stage of the
procedure involves 2 components the word immediately breaks
into. At each stage the constituents R broken into smaller
meaningful elements until further division is impossible. At this
point we deal with morphemes referred 2 as Ultimate
Constituents. (friendliness – friendly + ness (-ness can’t B
further divided =› it’s a morpheme), friend + ly). Morphemic
analysis under the method of Ucs may B carried out on the
basis of 2 principles: root principle (the segmentation of the
word is based on the identification of the root-morpheme in a
word-cluster: identification of the root-morpheme agree- in
agreeable, agreement), affix principle (based on the
identification of the affix within a set of words: the suffix –er
leads 2 the segmentation of words singer, teacher into the
derivational morpheme –er & the roots sing-, teach-)
37) Linguistic laws of phraseological units’ formation. Activity of
words and syntactic patterns.
According 2 the way PU R formed Koonin pointed out: primary ways (a
unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group): by means of transferring
the meaning of terminological word-groups (in cosmic technique we can
point out the following phrase to link up - cтыковаться, стыковать
космические корабли in its transformed meaning it means –
знакомиться); by transforming the meaning of free word groups (granny
farm - пансионат для престарелых), alliteration (a sad sack несчастный случай), by means of expressiveness, characteristic 4
forming interjections (My aunt!, Hear, hear !), by distorting a word group
(odds and ends from odd ends), by using archaisms (in brown study
means in gloomy meditation where both components preserve their
archaic meanings), by using a sentence in a different sphere of life (that
cock won’t fight can B used as a free word-group when it is used in sports
(cock fighting), it becomes a PU when it is used in everyday life, ‘coz it is
used metaphorically), when we use some unreal image (to have butterflies
in the stomach - испытывать волнение), by using expressions of writers
or politicians in everyday life (the winds of change (Mc Millan).
Secondary ways - PU is formed on the basis of another phraseological
unit: conversion (to vote with one’s feet was converted into vote with
one’s feet); changing the grammar form (Make hay while the sun shines is
transferred into a verbal phrase to make hay while the sun shines);
analogy (Curiosity killed the cat was transferred into Care killed the cat);
contrast (thin cat - «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with «fat
cat»); shortening of proverbs or sayings (from the proverb «You can’t
make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear» by means of clipping the middle of it
the PU «to make a sow’s ear» was formed with the meaning
«ошибаться»); borrowing either as translation loans (living space
(German), to take the bull by the horns ( Latin) or by means of phonetic
borrowings (meche blanche (French), corpse d’elite (French).
40) Main types of English dictionaries.
English dict. may B divided into 2 types: encyclopaedic
(Britannica, Americana) & linguistic (word-book, thing-book).
Acc. 2 the nature of the word-list: general (lin. units in ordinary
use), restricted (terminological, phraseological, dialectical).
Acc 2 the lang. on which information is given: bilingual,
monolingual. Acc. 2 the kind of information: explanatory,
translational. Each dict. has a certain aim. Criteria: nature of
the word list, information supplied, La of explanation,
prospective user. Specialized: phraseological, new words dict,
of slang, usage dict, of word frequency, pronouncing,
etymological, ideographic
43) Stylistic classification of the English vocabulary.
We speak differently in diff. situations. The way we speak and
the choice of words depend on the situation in which the
process of communication is realized. As we are speaking about
the functions of all this words in diff. situations we have to
define “functional style”.Functional style may B defined as a
system of expressive means peculiar 2 a specific sphere of
communication. The broadest division of E lexis is: formal
(varieties of E vocab that occur in books, magazines, we hear
from public speaker, radio, TV, formal talk. Words R used with
precision, generalized. Written speech, special technology,
poetic diction, official vocab & learned words (archaic –
thereby, hereby, thereupon, moreover, as follows), officialese,
journalese (clichés: dispatch, donation, sustain, conveyance) &
informal (used in every day speech; literary (colloquial (vocab
used by educated ppl in ordinary conversation), old generation
of writers, familiar colloquial – young generation of writers,
low colloquial – illiterate popular speech (blurred bound
between dialect), argot (special vocab & idioms used by a
community within the society (social/age group, criminal
circles), slang (ironical expressions, which serve 2 create fresh
names 4 some things that R frequent topics of discussion. 2
types of slang: general (words not specific 4 any social, age,
prof. Group) & special (teenage, university, military, football
slangs)
36) Types of phraseological units. Classifications and their evaluation.
1) the degree of motivation of their meaning (Vinogradov): fusions (very low, we can’t guess
the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components; highly idiomatic & cannot
B translated word 4 word: at sixes and sevens (in a mess); unities (the meaning of the whole
can B guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is metaphorical or metonymical:
old salt (experienced sailor); collocations (words R combined in their original meaning but
their combinations R diff in diff Las: cash and carry (self-service shop).
2) Structural classification (Smirnitsky). Points out one-top units (compared with derived
words ‘cause d. w’s have only 1 root morpheme), & two-top units (compared with
compound words ‘coz c. w’s R usually of 2 root morphemes).
ONE-TOP UNITS: verb + postposition type (to give up, to drop out); units of the type «to
be tired» (they can remind the Pas Voice in their structure (but they have diff preps with
them, while in the Pas Voice we can have only prepositions «by» or «with»), free wordgroups of the type «to be young» (to be aware of, but the adj «young» can B used as an
attribute & as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal component in such units can
act only as a predicative). In these units the V is the grammar centre and the 2nd
component is the semantic center); prepositional-nominal (equivalents of preps, conjs,
advs, that is why they have no grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part
(on the doorstep (quite near), in the course of, in time). TWO-TOP UNITS: attributivenominal (a month of Sundays, grey matter; noun equivalents & can B partly or perfectly
idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units the 1st component is idiomatic (high road), in other
cases the 2nd component is idiomatic (first night); verb-nominal (to read between the
lines, - the grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre - the nominal
component. In some units the verb is both the grammar & the semantic center (not to
know the ropes); phraseological repetitions (now or never, - can B built on antonyms (ups
and downs, back and forth). Components in R joined by means of conjunctions.
equivalents of adverbs or adjectives & have no grammar centre. They can also B partly
or perfectly idiomatic (cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter (perfectly).
3) Arnold classified’em as parts of speech: N phraseologisms (denote an object, a
person, a living being: bullet train, latchkey child, Green Berets), V (denote an action, a
state, a feeling: to break the log-jam, to nose out), adjective (a quality: loose as a goose,
dull as lead), adverb (with a bump, like a dream), preposition (in the course of, on the
stroke of), interjection («Catch me!», «Well, I never!»).
39) Lexicography. History of British and American lexicography .
Lexicography - the theory & practice of compiling dictionaries. The history of compiling
dictionaries for E comes as far back as the OE period (glosses of religious books interlinear translations from Lat into E). Regular bilingual dictionaries began 2 appear in
the 15th c. (Anglo-Lat, Anglo-Fr, Anglo-German).
1604 Robert Cawdry - the 1st unilingual dictionary compiled 4 schoolchildren. 1721,
Nathan Bailey - the 1st etymological dictionary which explained the origin of English
words (compiled 4 philologists). 1775, Samuel Johnson – an explanatory dictionary
(influenced the development of lexicography in all countries). Words were illustrated by
examples from E literature, the meanings were clear from the contexts in which they were
used. It influenced normalization of the E voc, helped 2 preserve the E spelling in its
conservative form. 1858 the question of compiling a dictionary including all the words
existing in the L was raised. Mo’ than a thousand people took part in collecting examples,
& 26 yrs later in 1884 the 1st volume was published (contained words beginning with «A»
& «B»). The last volume was published 70 yrs after the decision 2 compile it was adopted.
The dictionary was called NED and contained 12 volumes. In 1933 the dictionary was
republished under the title «The Oxford E Dictionary», ‘coz the work on the dictionary was
conducted in Oxford. 13 volumes. As the dictionary was very large and terribly expensive
shorter editions were compiled: «A Shorter Oxford Dictionary» (2 volumes, the same
number of entries, but far less examples). «A Concise Oxford Dictionary» was compiled
(1 volume, only modern words, no examples from lit-re).
The American L began 2 develop at the end of the 18th c. The most famous American
English dictionary was compiled by Noah Webster who published his 1st dictionary in
1806. He went on with his work on the dictionary and in 1828 he published a 2-volume
dictionary. Tried 2 simplify the English spelling & transcription, introduced the alphabetical
system of transcription where he used letters & combinations of letters instead of
transcription signs, denoted vowels in closed syllables by the corresponding vowels, (/a/,
/e/, /i/, /o/, /u/). He denoted vowels in the open syllable by the same letters, but with a
dash above them (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/). He denoted vowels in the position before /r/ as the
same letters with two dots above them & by the letter «e» with two dots above it for the
combinations «er», «ir», «ur» because they R pronounced identically. The same
tendency is preserved 4 other sounds: /u:/ is denoted by /oo/, /y/ is used 4 the sound /j/.
42. Etymological survey of the English vocabulary.
The term “etymology” comes from Greek and it means the study of the earliest forms of
the word. Now etymology studies both: the form and the meaning of borrowed and native
words. In every modern La there are native and borrowed words. As for E L many
scientist consider the foreign influence to be the most important factor in the development
of the E L. There are more borrowed words in E than in any other European L. It contains
the native element and the borrowed elements. The native element includes IndoEuropean, Germanic element and E proper element. boy, girl, lord, lady – proper E word.
By the Indo-European element are meant words of roots common to all Ls of the IndoEuropean group. The words of this group denote elementary concepts without which no
human communication would be possible. The following groups can be identified: 1.
Family relations: father, mother, brother, son, daughter; 2. Parts of the human body: foot,
nose, lip, heart; 3. Animals: cow, swine, goose; 4. Plants: tree, birch, corn; 5. Time of day:
day, night; 6. Heavenly bodies: sun, Numerous adjectives: red, new, glad, sad; 7. The
numerals from one to a hundred; 8. Pronouns - personal (except “they” which is
aScandinavian borrowing) and demonstrative; 9. Numerous verbs: be, stand.
The Germanic element represents words of roots common to all or most Germanic Ls.
Some of the main groups of Germanic words are the same as in the Indo-European
element: 1. Parts of the human body: head, hand, arm, finger, bone; 2. Animals: bear,
fox; 3. Plants: oak, fir, grass; 4. Natural phenomena: rain, 5. Seasons of the year: winter,
6. Landscape features: sea, 7. Human dwellings and furniture: house, room, bench; 8.
Sea-going vessels: boat; 9. Adjectives: green, blue, grey, white, small, thick, high, 10.
Verbs: see, hear, speak, tell, say, answer, make, give.
The E proper element is opposed to the 1st two groups. For not only it can be
approximately dated, but these words have another distinctive feature: they are
specifically E have no cognates in other Ls whereas for Indo-European and Germanic
words such cognates can always be found, as, for instance, for the following words of the
Indo-European group. Star: Germ. - Stern, Lat. - Stella, Gr. - aster. Stand: Germ. –
stehen, Lat. - stare, R. – стоять.
Here are some examples of English proper words: bird, boy, girl, lord, lady, woman,
daisy, always. Latin affixes of nouns: The suffix (-ion): legion, opinion, etc.; the suffix (tion): relation, temptation, etc.
35) Free phrases versus phraseological units. Criteria and
difficulties of differentiation.
Free phrases vs set-phrases. The border line between free
phrases & set phrases is not clearly defined. The so-called free
phrases R but relatively free as collocability of member-words
is fundamentally delimited by their lexical & grammatical
valency which makes at least some of them very close 2 setphrases. Set-phrases R but comparatively stable & semantically
inseparable. The existence of different terms 4 1 & the same
phenomenon (set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents) reflect the
main debatable issues of phraseology (different views
concerning the nature & essential features of phraseological
units as distinguished from free-phrases. The term set-phrase
implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of
the lexical components & grammatical structure of wordgroups. The term idioms implies that the essential feature of the
linguistic units is idiomacity (lack of motivation). The term
word-equivalent stresses not only semantic but also functional
inseparability of certain word-groups, their aptness 2 function
in speech. Thus phraseological units R habitually defined as
non-motivated word-groups that can’t B freely made up in
speech but R reproduced as ready-made units, the essential
features of phraseological units being stability of the lexical
components & lack of motivation. Components of free-phrases
vary according 2 the needs of communication, components of
set-phrases R always reproduced as single unchangeable units.
38) Contrastive study of phraseology. Common sources as the
foundation for equivalent phraseological units. Socio-cultural
properties of phraseological units.
В большинстве своем фразеологизмы в англ – исконные. Во
многих из них отражаются традиции, обычаи и поверья англ
народа, различные реалии и факты англ истории (sit above the
salt). Важнейш источник исконных фразеологизмов – проф
речь: armed at all points («во всеоружии» - военн происхожд).
Многие исконные фр-мы – лит происхождения (1 место по
числу фр-мов, вошедших в англ, заним. произведения
Шекспира. Лит произведения, написанные на др яыках,
становятся важнейш источником заимствован фразеологизмов.
Среди них как наиболее значимые – Библия (метать бисер
перед свиньями – cast pearls B4 swine), античная мифология и
лит-ра (золотая середина – the golden mean (Гораций). Лит
произведения играют существ роль и для группы фр-мов,
заимствованных из амер варианта англ (последний из Могикан
– the last of Mohicans). Эквивалентность фр-мов в разных язах
зачастую явл. следствием общности их происхождения и,
наоборот, отсутствие эквивалентного фр-ма – специфики его
источника. Наиб. степень эквивалентности присуща фр-мам
заимствованным (Библия, античная мифология, греч. и римск.
лит-ра). Встречаются эквивалентные фр-мы и среди исконных
фр-мов, но их очень мало (смеется тот, кто смеется последним
– He laughs best who laughs last, куй железо, пока горячо – Strike
while the iron is hot). Среди исконных фр-мов превалируют те, у
кот. имеются лишь частично эквивалентные им фр-мы в др
языке или же вообще отсутствуют аналоги.
41) Problems of lexicographic description.
1) Selection of ling. units 4 inclusion. This process is necessary
4 compiling any dictionary. Which form (spoken/written),
number of items, what 2 select, what 2 leave out (technical
terms, dialectisms, colloquialisms, archaisms). Depend on type
of dictionary, aim, prospective user, size. 2) Arrangement of
entries (alphabetical (easy 2 use), cluster type order, frequency
(descending order; less space, clearer picture of relations of
each unit with other units). 3) Selection & arrangement of
meanings (some give meanings that R of current use, some –
obsolete ones (diachronic/ synchronic dict.) 3 ways meanings R
arranged: historical order (sequence of their historical
development), actual order (frequency of use), logical order
(logical connection). Sometimes the primary meaning comes 1st
if this is important 4 a correct understanding of derived
meanings. 4) Definition of meanings: encyclopaedic (determine
the concept, common of nouns & terms), descriptive (give word
meaning, used in majority of cases), synonyms & expressions
(common 4 verbs, adj), references (see defence, common 4
derivatives, abbreviations, variant forms) 5) Illustrative
examples. Diff. purposes illustrating changes in
graphic/phonetic form as well as meaning, typical patterns &
collocations, differences between synonyms, place words in
context 2 clarify meaning. Should B made up or quoted from
literature? How much space? Diachronical dicts – quotations
from literature (author, source, date should B noted),
synchronical dict (classical, contemporary sources, only
author).
19) Difficulties of segmentation and classification of morphemes.
Possible solutions.
1) Pseudo-morphemes - sound-clusters which have a differential & a
certain distributional meaning, but luck lexical meaning of their own
(retain, detain – receive, deceive, re- & de- have nothing in common
with the phonetically identical prefixes re- & de- (re-organize, deorganize), neither re- or de- nor –tain, -ceive posees any functional or
lexical meaning, yet they R felt as having a certain meaning because
re- distinguishes retain from detain.) 2) Unique root – bound
morphemes, not recurrent in other word groups & possessing only
differential & distributional meaning (pocket, islet can B confused
with such words as lionet, locket, which have a diminutive suffix–et.
But unlike root-morphemes lion, lock, recurring in other words, the
sound cluster [pok-] doesn’t & has no denotational meaning. Other ex.
word hamlet comparing with streamlet, leaflet or compound words
cranberry, gooseberry). 3) A special kind of bound root-morphemes
different from root-morphemes occurring in ordinary compounds.
(graph-, tele-, scope- R characterized by quite a definite lex. meaning
& peculiar stylistic reference. Analysis of such words as telegraph,
telephone & autograph, phonograph may lead 2 conclusion that they
contain no root-morpheme & R composed of a suffix & a prefix). 4)
Semi-affixes - root-morphemes functioning as derivational morphemes
(the morphemes half- & ill- in such words as ill-mannered, half-done
though they seem 2 retain the status of roots, have become at the same
time mo; indicative of a generalized meaning than of the individual
lexical meaning proper 2 the same morpheme in independent words;
they R losing their semantic identity with roots in independent words
& don’t function as their lexical centres; instead they modify the root
morpheme applying to it a general characteristic of incompleteness &
poor quality)
20. Morphemic types of English words and their role in the
lexicon and speech.
According to the number of morphemes words are classified
into monomorphic and polymorphic. Monomorphiс or rootwords consist of only one root-morpheme, e.g. small, dog,
make, give, etc. All pоlуmоrphiс words according to the
number of root-morphemes are classified into two subgroups:
monoradical (or one-root words) and polyradical words, i.e.
words which consist of two or more roots. Monoradical words
fall into two subtypes: 1) radical-suffixal words, i.e. words that
consist of one root-morpheme and one or more suffixal
morphemes, e.g. acceptable, acceptability, blackish, etc.;
2)radical-prefixal words, i.e. words that consist of one rootmorpheme and a prefixal morpheme, e.g. outdo, rearrange,
unbutton, etc. and 3) prefixo-radical-suffixal, i.e. words which
consist of one root, a prefixal and suffixal morphemes, e.g.
disagreeable, misinterpretation, etc.
Polyradical words fall into two types: 1) polyradical words
which consist of two or more roots with no affixational
morphemes, e.g. book-stand, eye-ball, lamp-shade, etc. and 2)
words which contain at least two roots and one or more
affixational morphemes, e.g. safety-pin, wedding-pie, classconsciousness, light-mindedness, pen-holder, etc.
The analysis of the morphemic composition of words defines
the ultimate meaningful constituents (UCs), their typical
sequence and arrangement.
21) The derivational status of an affix. Problems and solutions.
Derivational affixes differ from affixational morphemes in their function within the word, in their
distribution and in their meaning. Derivational affixes possess two basic functions: 1) that of stembuilding which is common to all affixational morphemes: derivational and non-derivational. It is the
function of shaping a morphemic sequence, or a word-form or a phrase into the part of the word
capable of taking a set of grammatical inflections and is conditioned by the part-of-speech
meaning these morphemes possess; 2) that of word-building which is the function of repatterning
a derivational base and building a lexical unit of a structural and semantic type different from the
one represented by the source unit. The repatterning results in either transferring it into the stem
of another part of speech or transferring it into another subset within the same part of speech.
The problem of the derivational status of affixation is very important due 2 abundance of
borrowings in English, morphemic analysis of which is a rather difficult enterprise. As the result
linguist give different lists of affixes, which don’t 2 coincide in number and types of affixes. Firstly,
without synchronical & diachronical treatment of such morphemes as –k, -le (lark, stalk) & -y, ness (branchy) some scientists fail 2 differentiate between living affixes (-y, -ness) & dead 1s (-le,
-k). 2ndly the absence of clear-cut boundaries within the system of affixes is due 2 different views
on morphemic status of such affixes as under- (underfeed, underestimate), -man (workman,
seaman). This problem, called semi-affixation problem, is topical 4 many Germanic langs.
Depending on whether we consider these morphemes root 1s or affixal the boundaries within the
system of affixes would B different. The derivational status of a DA can B determined due 2 the
distinction of synchronical & diachronical approaches, morphemic & derivational word analyses &
the conditions of derivation. The 1st stage of affixal analysis is distinguishing synchronically
relevant prefixes & suffixes. The 2nd 1 – definition of the class 2 which the affix belongs with
further distinguishing derivational 1s. & finally meaning, structural attributes & functions, position
within the system of affixes R defined. This process is connected with some difficulties which
arise due 2 existence of pseudo-morphemes - sound-clusters which have a differential & a certain
distributional meaning, but luck lexical meaning of their own (retain, detain – receive, deceive),
unique root (bound morphemes, not recurrent in other word groups & possessing only differential
& distributional meaning (pocket, islet can B confused with such words as lionet, locket, which
have a diminutive suffix –et. Other ex. compound words cranberry, gooseberry), semi-affixes
(root-morphemes functioning as derivational morphemes: half- & ill- (ill-mannered, half-done)
have become mo’ indicative of a generalized meaning than of the individual lexical meaning
proper 2 the same morpheme in independent words; they R losing their semantic identity with
roots in independent words & don’t function as their lexical centres; instead they modify the root
morpheme applying to it a general characteristic of incompleteness & poor quality)
22) Derivation on the native and neo-Latin bases in present-day E.
Знание лат и греч основ позволяет вывести правила построения
рядов слов типа cardial «сердечный». Будучи заимствованными в
готовом виде, такие слова не воспринимаются как производные, т.
к. в заимствующем языке отсутствуют единицы, с кот. их можно
было бы сопоставить. В язе-источнике же эти слова – производные,
образованные по нормам данного языка и демонстрирующие
формальную и семантическую связь с его единицами (kardia
«сердце» - kardiakos).Т. к. заимствуется только производная
лексема, то в заимствующем язе теряется ее производный характер,
и она становится для носителей данного языка непроизводной. Но
благодаря их генетич производности сохраняется семантическая
расчлененность заимствованных деривативов, кот. диктует поиск в
англ. языке соотв. единиц, обозначающих те сущности, к кот.
отсылаются данные заимствования. -› в англ. язе – специфическая
система супплетивных форм (nose - nasal, ear – aural, city - urban).
Есть случаи заимствования и обоих членов пары (economy –
economic). Их многочисленность привела к усвоению англ. языком
соответствующих словообразовательных моделей и созданию в
системе его словообразования особой подсистемы
(словообразование на неолат основе). Поэтому серьезная проблема
словообразовательного анализа явл. выяснение того, заимствованы
ли оба члена пары или же образование производного произошло
уже в английском языке по сформировавшейся под влиянием
многочисленных заимствований словообразовательной модели. Но
при описании синхронных отношений между словами , когда
важны проблемы словообразовательного анализа тех
заимствований, кот. формально не производны, и установления
деривационного статуса аффиксов, входящих в их состав, этот
вопрос незначителен.
23. Selectional rules and derivational affixal patterns.
Для образования новых слов требуется учет не только ведущ семантич
признаков лексич ед-ц, но и их потенц сем, кот актуализируются в опр
ситуациях и опр-т словообразоват активность слова. Получение полного
списка правил сочетаемости слов и аффиксов, затрудняется тем, что одни
и те же ед-цы могут вступать во взаимодействие с неск аффиксами, что и
приводит к созданию опр словообразоват парадигм производных.
In conformity with the division of derivational affixes into suffixes and prefixes
affixation is subdivided into suffixation and prefixation. Distinction is made
between prefixal and suffixal derivatives acc to the last stage of derivation,
which determines the nature of the ICs of the pattern that signals the relationship of
the derived word with its motivating source unit. In ModE suffixation is mostly
characteristic of N and aAdj formation, while prefixation is mostly typical of V
formation. The distinction rests on the role diff types of meaning play in the
semantic structure of the suffix and the prefix: Pref+N,V,Adj; N,V,Adj+suf.
A derivational pattern - is a regular meaningful arrangement of immediate
constituent, which can be expressed by a formula denoting their part of speech,
lexical-semantic class and individual semantics. For example: pref + adj —>
Adj (adj + n) + -ed —> Adj or being written in a more abstract way not taking
into account the final results: pref + adj->(adj + n) + suf or vice versa, taking
into account the final results and with individualization of some of the IС, like
in: re- + v —* V or pref + read —* V.
Like derivational affixes deriv patterns may be productive and nonproductive, for
ex, a number of patterns of diff productivity are used to lexicalize concepts denoting
a doer of an action: v + -er —>N is a highly productive deriv pattern {teach —>
teacher, build —* builder, sing — singer), n + -ist -*N is quite a productive pattern
(piano —> pianist, art —> artist), but n + -ian —> N (politics/policy —» politian;
comedy comedian) is active though not a productive pattern because a limited
number of words are derived acc to it. One should be aware that the meaning of a
derived word is not a mere sum of meanings of all the constituents mentioned
above. Derived words usually have an additional idiomatic component of their own
(word-formation meaning) that is not observed in either of the constituent
components.
24) Productivity and activity of affixal derivational patterns.
Some of the ways of forming words in present-day E can be resorted to for the
creation of new words whenever the occasion demands — these are called
prоduсtive ways of forming words, other ways of forming words cannot now
produce new words, and these are commonly termed non-productive.
Dead Affixes have so fused with the stem of the word as 2 lose their
independence completely (-d (deed, seed), -le, -l, -el (bundle, sail, hovel), -ock
(hillock), -lock (wedlock), -t (gift, flight). They R irrelevant 2 present day word
formation. Living affixes can B easily singled out from a word (noun-formin –
ness, -dom, -hood, -age, -ance; adj-formin –en, -ous, -ive, -ful, -y). But the living
1s R different from the point of view of their productivity -› productive & nonproductive 1s. Productivity of derivational affixes is characterized by their
ability 2 make new words rather than their frequency of occurrence in speech.
While some linguists claim that P of DA is their participation in the formation of
new words in ME & their ability 2 coin a new word whenever it’s required,
others emphasise that the main characteristic feature of productive affixes is
their ability 2 create an unlimited number of words (= occasional words, a
lungful of smoke) which all English speakers would understand without any
difficulties. Degrees of productivity: highly productive affixes (-er, -ist, -ish),
semi-productive (-eer, -ese, -ette, -ward: seaward), non-productive (-ard, -cy, ive, -en: laggard, defensive). Accepting this concept of productivity we must
regard such affixes as –dom, -ship, -ful, -en, -ify, -ate as non-productive. Though
the P of DA is relative. Thus it’s important that conditions favouring P & the
degree of P of a particular DA should B established. 4 example the suffix –ize is
most productive with noun-stems, adj-stems also favour its productivity,
whereas verb & adv-stems don’t. The productivity measure of a DA may B
established on a statistical basis as the ratio of the number of words with the
same suffix already operating in the lang. + different PA R found in different
periods of the history of the La. Out of 7 verb-forming suffixes of the OE period
only 1 has survived with a very low degree of P (-en: to darken). Also some
affixes being non-productive in the non-specialized section of the vocab is used
2 coin scientific or technical terms (-ance: reactance; -ity: luminosity).
Activity – ability to interact with word building means.
29.The domain of zero derivation and its results: adjectivization, substantivization,
occasional conversion, root formation.
30. Derivative relations in conversion and criteria of their directionality.
31. Semantic relations in conversion pairs and their propositional basis.
32. A compound word - a free word combination - a phraseological unit. Problems of
boundaries and criteria.
33. Factors of government and binding words into phrases. Lexical and grammatical
valency.
34. Motivation and variability of word combinations.
35. Free phrases versus phraseological units. Criteria and difficulties of differentiation.
36. Types of phraseological units.Classifications and their evaluation.
37. Linguistic laws of Ph Us formation.Activity of words and syntactic patterns.
38. Contrastive study of phraseology. Common sources as the foundation for equivalent
phraseological units. Socio-cultural properties of phraseological units.
39. Lexicography. History of British and American lexicography .
40. Main types of English dictionaries.
41. Problems of lexicographic description .
42.Etymological survey of the English vocabulary .
43. Stylistic classification of the English vocabulary .
44. General properties and specific features of the English vocabulary .
45. National and regional varieties of English .
46.Minor ways and means of word formation in English.
47. Classifications of compound words in English.
48. Semantic and non-semantic classifications within the English vocabulary.
49. Synonymy. Antonymy.
50. Hyperonymic-hyponymic sets in English.
25) Affixal word formation fields.
Сущ. (поле качества и состояния (-ness, -ity, -ship, -ation, ment, -hood, -age, -dom, -tude); поле агентивности (-er, -ist, ess, -ee, -ant/-ent, -eer, -ary, -ette), поле оценки (-let, -ette, -ie/y, -ling, -kin), поле науки –ism, -ics, -y), поле рода
деятельности (-ery, -ing, -ship, -y), поле локальности (-ery,
-ary, -age, -arium), поле вещества (-ing, -ette, -ite), поле
количества (-ful, -age, -some), поле языка ( -let, -ing, -et, ton); прилаг. (поле отношения (-al, –ic, -ical, –ac, –ite),
наличия/отсутствия качества (-y, -less, -ous, -ed, -ful, -ish,
-able, -ate, -some), способности/неспособности к действию
(-able, -ive, -ory, -ant/-ent, -less, -some, -ful, -ish), сходства (y, -ish, -ly, -an, -esque, -ate, -ous, -ful), принадлежности (-an,
-ary, -ine, -ish, -ese, -ous, -ern), поле со значением
«сделанный из» (-en, -y, -ine); глаг. (поле каузации: -ize, ate, -ify, -en)
46. Minor ways and means of word formation in English.
Shortening — subtraction of the original word or word group. The earliest shortenings in
English are Mr. and Mrs. Lex shortening may be of different types: Clipping: Creation of
new words by shortening a word of two or more syllables or segments. Clipping may be
initial: exam (EXAMination); both initial and final: fridge (reFRIDGErator); middle: maths
(MATHematicS. Acronymy: Acronyms are words formed from the initial letters of a fixed
phrase or title. Established acronyms are UNO, TV, VIP.
Blending: Many words in English are the result of a process of blending where initial and
terminal segments of two words are joined together to create a new word. Blending
occurred in all periods of the E L development but it became most active in the 2nd half
of the 20th century {brunch for 'breakfast + lunch, smog for 'Smoke + fog. Its role is
especially remarkable in the vocabulary of sports, entertainment and politics.
Back-formation: as it occurs when a suffix (or a morph perceived as a suffix) is
removed from a word (to edit - an editor, to beg - a beggar). Words derived by means of
back-formation look morphologically more simple {edit, beg) than the words they have
originated from {editor, beggar). Nowadays back-formation is mainly characteristic of Vs
derived of compound nouns (baby-sit from baby-sitter, house-keep from house-keeper).
Rhyming slang is begun as a secret language among 19lh century Cockney navies to
confuse Irish co-workers: loaf and bread 'head', Adam and Eve for 'believe'.
Composition of scientific names: Scientific terms are very often derived by means of
combining word segments, often of Lat and Gr origin. In E they act as roots ‘cause there
may be no other roots in a word: anglophiie, telephone, physico-chemical.
Reduplication — repetition of roots or syllables in immediate succession — is one of
the oldest types of word-formation (шёл-шёл, жили-были). Though reduplication in E is
widespread (bye-bye, hush-hush). The meaning of the words derived in such a way is
diverse and unpredictable, as it is in many Ls, but usually reduplication is used to denote
quantity, intensity or priority. There are rhyme-motivated reduplicated compounds:
walkie-talkie and ablaut-motivated reduplicative impounds ping-pong, flip-flop.
The process of analogical word-formation takes place when a certain element of a
morph-cal structure of a word like a root, bound, unique or pseudo-morpheme, changes
into a regular 2-faceted morpheme: hamburger —cheeseburger, England — Disneyland;
kleptomania — nymphomania, geography — biography, Watergate — Irangate.
49. Synonymy. Antonymy.
Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence. Sem equ-e can exist between
words and word-groups, word-groups and sentences, sentences and sentences: John is
taller than Bill is sem-ly equivalent to Bill is shorter than John. John sold the book to Bill
and Bill bought the book from John may be considered sem-ly equivalent: these
sentences are paraphrases and denote the same event. Similar relations between wordgroups and sentences are described as sem-ic equ-ce. Synonyms may be found in difft
parts of speech and both among notional and function words: on and upon, since and as.
Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but identical or
similar in meaning. This definition has been severely criticised on many points.
Synonymous relationship is observed only between similar denotational meanings of
phonemically different words and interchangeable at least in some contexts.
Differentiation of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components —
denotational or connotational. Synonymous words always differ in the denotational
component. Thus buy and purchase are similar in meaning but differ in their stylistic
reference and therefore are not completely interchangeable. Synonyms: contextual, total.
The def-on of antonyms as words characterised by semantic polarity or opposite
meaning is also criticised. There are at least 4 groups of antonyms: 1. Contradictories:
dead - alive, single -married; 2. Contraries differ from contradictories mainly because
contradictories admit of no possibility between them: cold —hot, and cool - warm which
seem to be intermediate members. Thus we may regard as antonyms not only cold - hot
but also cold - warm. Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or
presence of one of the components of meaning like sex or age (man — woman, man —
boy).3. Incompatibles. Sem-ic relations of incompatibility exist among the antonyms with
the common component of meaning and may be described as reverse of hyponymy:
morning - not afternoon, not evening, not night. A relation of incompatibility may be
observed between colours since choice of red, excludes black, blue, yellow ...
Not all words or all meanings have antonyms (table, book). In some cases, however,
antonymy and synonymy serve to differentiate the meanings. Interchangeability in certain
contexts analysed in connection with synonyms is typical of antonyms as well. In a
context where one member of the antonymous pair can be used, it is, as a rule,
interchangeable with the other member but it doesn’t imply that the same antonyms are
interchangeable in all contexts (dry — damp, wet, moist).
1. Lexicology, its object and aims of research.
2. Lexical units: their properties and specific features.
3. The description of the lexicon in generative grammar.
4. The function of lexical units. Naming processes: causes, ways, types and results.
5. Motivated and non-motivated lexical units.
6. The word as the basic lexical unit.
7.Typologies of meaning. Lexical and grammatical meaning.
8. The essence of meaning. The referential approach.
9. The essence of meaning. The functional approach.
10. The behaviouristic and cognitive approaches to meaning.
11. Meaning as structure. Components of meaning.
12. Semantic derivation. Causes, types and functions.
13. Semantic ambiguity. Polysemy versus homonymy. Criteria and linguistic frequency.
14. Homonymy. Types of homonyms.
15.Patterned polysemy of lexical units in English.
16.Morphology as the study of language forms. Inflexional vs Derivational Morphology.
17. The speaker – hearer approach to the analysis of the word structure: morphemics vs
word formation
18. The morpheme as the smallest meaningful unit. Principles and methods of
morphemic analysis.
19. Difficulties of segmentation and classification of morphemes. Possible solutions.
20. Morphemic types of English words and their role in the lexicon and speech.
21.. The derivational status of an affix. Problems and solutions.
22.Derivation on the native and neo-Latin bases in present-day English
23. Selectional rules and derivational affixal patterns.
24.Productivity and activity of affixal derivational patterns
25.Affixal word formation fields.
26. Correlative word formation fields and patterns in English and Byelorussian (Russian,
German, French...) languages
27.Love – to love, to run - a run: A way of derivation or a functional shift?
28.The derivation device: zero-derivation, non-affixal word formation, conversion,
morphological, syntactic, morphological-syntactic way of word formation.
45) National and regional varieties of English.
Standard E - current & literary, substantionally uniform &
recognized as acceptable whenever E is spoken & understood.
Local dialects – varieties of E peculiar 2 some district. Best known
southern d. – Cockney spoken by educated lower-middle class,
marked by deviations in pronunciation, but few in syntax & vocab,
also spoken by uneducated – different in vocab, morphol., syntax.
Now dialects R chiefly preserved in rural communities in the speech
of elderly ppl. They undergo rapid changes under the influence of
standard E. Scottish tongue, Irish E – have a spec. ling status –
literature composed in them. Am. E is not a dialect as it has a
literary normalized form – standard Am. whereas by definition
dialect has no literary form. Here we deal with amerikanisms –
words & expressions peculiar 2 the E as spoken in the USA. AE
differs from E in pronunciation, some features in grammar, but
chiefly in vocab. The A. vocab developed mo’ or less independently
of British, 4 mo’ than 3 centuries & was influenced by the new
surroundings. Many of the elements borrowed into AE R from
Indian dialects, Spanish. Soon they penetrated into British ([æ] 4
[a:], our = or, new – nu, thru – through). In the course of time lexical
differences tend 2 decrease (TV, cinema, internet). There R also
Australia, Canad, Ind. E, each has a literature of its own,
characterised by peculiarities in spelling, phonetics, gram, vocab.
The vocab of of all variants is characterised by a high percentage of
borrowings from the lang of the ppl who lived there B4 the eng
colonisation. The local penetrate into E as international words –
borrowed from 1 lang into several others simultaneously or at short
intervals.Indian: khaki, pyjamasAustr: boomerang, kangaroo, dingo
44. General properties and specific features of the English vocabulary.
Every L allows different kinds of variations: geographical or territorial, perhaps
the most obvious, stylistic, the difference between the written and the spoken
form of the standard national La and others. For historical and economic reasons
the E L has spread over vast territories. It is the national L of England proper,
the USA, Australia, New Zealand and some provinces of Canada. It is the
official La in Wales, Scotland, in Gibraltar and on the island of Malta. The
English La was also at different times enforced as an official La on the peoples
who fell under British rule or US domination in Asia, Africa and Central and
South America. The population of these countries still spoke their mother
tongue or had command of both Las.
Modern linguistics distinguishes territorial variants of a national La and local
dialects. Variants of a L are regional varieties of a standard literary La
characterised by some minor peculiarities in the sound system, vocabulary and
grammar. Dialects are varieties of a La used as a means of oral communication
in small localities, they are set off (more or less sharply) from other varieties by
some distinctive features of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary.
It is over half a century already that the nature of the two main variants of the E
L, Br and Am (Br and AE) has been discussed. Some Am linguists, H. L.
Mencken for one, speak of two separate Las. They even proclaim that the
American influence on British English is so powerful that there will come a
time when the American standard will be established in Britain. Other linguists
regard the La of the USA as a dialect of English.
Still more questionable is the position of Australian E (AuE) and Canadian E.
The differences between the English La as spoken in Britain, the USA,
Australia and Canada are immediately noticeable in the field of phonetics.The
variations in vocabulary are not very numerous. Most of them are divergences
in the semantic structure of words and in their usage.
Since BE, AE and AuE have essentially the same grammar system, phonetic
system and vocabulary, they cannot be regarded as different Las. Nor can they
be referred to local dialects; because they serve all spheres of verbal
communication in society, within their territorial area they have dialectal
differences of their own
47. Classifications of compound words in English.
Compound words may be described from different points of
view and consequently may be classified according to different
principles. They may be viewed from the point of view: 1) of
general relationship and degree of semantic independence of
components; 2) of the parts of speech compound words
represent; 3) of the means of composition used to link the two
ICs together; 4) of the type of ICs that are brought together to
form a compound; 5) of the correlative relations with the
system of free word-groups.Each type of compound words
based on the above-mentioned principles should also be
described from the point of view of the degree of its potential
power, i.e. its productivity, its relevancy to the system of
Modern English compounds. This description must aim at
finding and setting a system of ordered structural and semantic
rules for productive types of compound words on analogy with
which an infinite number of new compounds constantly appear
in the La.
50. Hyperonymic-hyponymic sets in English.
Гипероним обознач класс сущностей (plant – родовое название), вкл-щий
класс сущностей обозначаемых другим словом – гипонимом (подвиды,
подчиненные слова), они связаны отношениями включения или
господства. Сущ-ет больш кол-во наборов слов, связанных между собой
отношениями соподчинения или господства. Они образуют так наз-мые
гиперо-гипонимические ряды, или, по Ч.Филлмору, таксономии. It is
noteworthy that the principle of such hierarchical classification is widely used
by scientists in various fields of research: botany, geology, etc.
Наличие гиперо-гипонимических отношений имеет место тогда, когда в
семантике связанных отношениями включения слов обнаруживаются
общие семантические признаки, составляющие одно из сравниваемых
значений, и дополнительные (хотя бы один) признаки, отличающие одно
значение от другого из сравниваемых значений. Гипероним шире по
объему своей референции, или экстенсионалу, но уже по содержанию
закрепляемого им и понятия в сравнении с гипонимом, т.е. уже по набору
атрибутов, характеризующих любую сущность, или интенсионалу.
Наряду с отношениями подчинения и господства в гиперо-гипонимических рядах сущ-ют и отношения равноправия, кот
устанавливаются между гипонимами одного гиперонима. Такие
гипонимы называются согипонимами, или эквонима-ми (tulip, rose, violet).
By hyponymy is meant a semantic relationship of inclusion. Thus, vehicle
includes car, bus, taxi ...; oak implies tree; horse entails animal; table entails
furniture. Thus the hyponymic relationship may be viewed as the hierarchical
relationship between the meaning of the general and the individual terms.
It is of importance to note that in such hierarchical structures certain words may
be both classifiers and members of the groups.
A general problem with this principle of classification (just as with lexicosemantic group criterion) is that there often exist overlapping classifications.
For example, persons may be divided into adults (man, woman, husband, etc.)
and children (boy, girl, lad, etc.) but also into national groups (American,
Russian, Chinese, etc.), professional groups (teacher, butcher, baker, etc.),
social and economic groups, and so on.
