english lexicology
DESCRIPTION
English LexicologyTRANSCRIPT
English Lexicology43. Lexicology. Definition. Links with Other Branches of Linguistics. Two
Approaches to Language Study. Lexicology and Sociolinguistics. Varieties
of Words.
Lexicology is a branch of linguistics, it is study of words.The term is composed of
two Greek morphemes: logos – learning, Lexus – word, phrase. Thus the literal meaning
of the term is the science of the word.LG is a branch of linguistics and has its own aims
and methods of scientific research. Its basic task is to study and descript systematically
the vocabulary in respect to its origin, development and current use.LG is concerned
with words, variable workgroups, phrasiological units and with morphemes. Modern
English LG investigates the problems of word structure and word formation in modern
English.The semantic structure of English words, the main principles underline the
classification of vocabulary units into various groupings, the laws, governing, and the
development of the vocabulary.It also studies the variation, existing between various
lexical layers of the English vocabulary and the specific laws and regulations that
govern its development at the present time. The source and the growth of the EV and
the changes.
Branches:
The General LG – the general study of words and vocabulary. Linguistic
phenomena and properties common to all languages are generally referred as language
universals. The Special LG – is the LG of a particular language. That’s the study of and
description of its vocabulary and vocabulary units.The Historical LG – the evolution of
any vocabulary. It discusses the origin of various words, their change and development,
investigates linguistics and extra linguistics forces. The object - its single elements,
modifying their structure, meaning and usage. The Contrastive and Comparative LG -
their aims are to study the correlation between the vocabularies of 2 or more languages
and find out the correspondences between the vocabulary units.The descriptive LG –
deals with the vocabulary of a given language at a given stage of its development.
LG also studies all kinds of semantic grouping and semantic relations such as
synonymy, antonymy, homonymy, semantic fields. Meaning relations as a whole are
dealed within semantics – the Study of meaning. There are two principal approaches in
linguistic science to the study of language material:
The synchronic (historical). Concerned with the study and description of a
language system at a certain time.
The diachronic. Deals with the changes and the development of the
vocabulary on the course of time.
The two approaches are interconnected and interdependent. The synchronic state of
a language is the result of a long process of linguistic evolution of its historical
development.
Eg: to bag – bagger (closely connected with the history, bagger is borrowed from
Old French).
There are two schools of thought in present –day linguistics representing
contemporary thinking on the problem:
1) referential approach (founded by Ferdinand de Saussure)
distinguishes between the three components connected with meaning: the sound
form of the linguistic sign, the concept underlying this sound form and the actual
referent, the aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers.
Establishing this relationship our approach to the problem of meaning is referential
because we refer to the sound form, to the concept and to the referent and discuss
their relationship.
This referential approach is criticized because the scholars in their theory use
extra-linguistic terms such as concept, referent. Besides, approaching the problem
of meaning the linguistic elements (words) are discussed in isolation from each
other (from other words). So referential approach is paradigmatic. We discuss the
meanings of words in a certain system. But in speech we use words in their
environment and not in isolation. In this environment we define the meaning of
words.
2) functional approach (L. Bloomfield) maintains that the
meaning of a word may be studied only through its relation to other words.
These two approaches should not be set against each other. They should be used in
peaceful combination. The examination of meaning must start by collecting an
adequate number of samples of contexts. On examination of the samples the
meaning will emerge from the contexts. Then it is logical to pass to the referential
phase and try to formulate the meaning thus identified.
44. Semasiology. Word-Meaning. Referential Approach to Meaning.
Functional Approach to Meaning. Types of Meaning. Denotational and
Connotational Meaning. Emotive Charge. Stylistic Reference.
The branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words and word
equivalents is called semasiology. If treated diachronically, semasiology studies
the change in meaning which words undergo. Descriptive synchronic approach
demands a study not of individual words but of semantic structures typical of the
language studied, and of its general semantic system.The main objects of
semasiological study are as follows: semantic development of words, its causes
and classification, relevant distinctive features and types of lexical meaning,
polysemy and semantic structure of words, semantic grouping and connections in
the vocabulary system, i.e. synonyms, antonyms, terminological systems, etc. The
definition of lexical meaning has been attempted more than once in accordance
with the main principles of different linguistic schools. The disciples of F. de
Saussure consider meaning to be the relation between the object or notion named,
and the name itself. Descriptive linguistics of the Bloomfieldian trend defines the
meaning as the situation in which the word is uttered. Both ways of approach
afford no possibility of a further investigation of semantic problems in strictly
linguistic terms, and therefore, if taken as a basis for general linguistic theory, give
no insight into the mechanism of meaning. Some of L. Bloomfield’s successors
went so far as to exclude semasiology from linguistics on the ground that meaning
could not be studied “objectively", and was not part of language but “an aspect of
the use to which language is put”. This point of view was never generally accepted.
The more general opinion is well revealed in R. Jakobson’s pun. He said:
“Linguistics without meaning is meaningless."1 This crisis of semasiology has
been over for some twenty years now, and the problem of meaning has provided
material for a great number of books, articles and dissertations.
In our country the definitions of meaning given by various authors, though
different in detail, agree in the basic principle: they all point out that lexical
meaning is the realisation of concept or emotion by means of a definite language
system. The definition stresses that semantics studies only such meanings that can
be expressed, that is concepts bound by signs.
The term ‘motivation’ is used to denote the relationship existing between the
meaning of the word and some characteristic feature that was the basis to name this
object or phenomenon.
This characteristic feature is called motivating feature. In the process of
designation of one and the same object or phenomenon different motivating
features can be used. For example, in Russian the basis to express the notion
‘носовой платок’ was the feature, that it was used to wipe the nose; in English the
motivating feature was that it was held in the hand (hand + kerchief).
Motivation can be real (as in the above given examples), it is based on the real
motivating feature. Motivation can also be unreal, reflecting ancient myths and
legends. For example, in some languages the names of the days of the week are
connected with the names of gods.
Motivation can be phonetic, morphological and semantic.
1) Words are phonetically motivated when there is a certain similarity between
the sounds that make up the words and the sense they denote. Such words as hiss,
bang, buzz, howl, etc. are phonetically motivated because the sounds that make
them up reflect directly or approximately the natural sounds.
Phonetically motivated are not only echoic, onomatopoeic words, but also sound
symbolic (звукосимволические), that denote different kinds of movement, size,
form, distance, etc.
2) Morphological motivation
One-morpheme words such as e.g. sing, tell, cat, table, etc. are non-motivated
morphologically (may be phonetically?).
Derived words as e.g. rethink, leader, eatable, etc. are motivated
morphologically, we can see a direct connection between the structural pattern of
the word and its meaning (re- prefix expressing repetition of an action + think, lead
+ suffix –er expressing the doer of an action, etc.). Motivation here stops on word
level, the morphemes themselves are not motivated morphologically.
Words are supposed to be non-motivated if the connection between the structure of
the word and its meaning is completely arbitrary and conventional, e.g. repeat,
matter, etc.
There are also partially motivated words as for example, cranberry where berry
has its meaning, but cran- does not.
REFERENTIAL APPROACH
Within the referential approach linguists attempt at establishing interdependence
between words and objects of phenomena they denote. The idea is illustrated by
the so-called basic triangle:
Concept
Sound – form_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Referent
[kæt] (concrete object)
The diagram illustrates the correlation between the sound form of a word, the
concrete object it denotes and the underlying concept. The dotted line suggests that
there is no immediate relation between sound form and referent + we can say that
its connection is conventional (human cognition).
However the diagram fails to show what meaning really is. The concept, the
referent, or the relationship between the main and the concept.
The merits: it links the notion of meaning to the process of namegiving to
objects, process of phenomena. The drawbacks: it cannot be applied to sentences
and additional meanings that arise in the conversation. It fails to account for
polysemy and synonymy and it operates with subjective and intangible mental
process as neither reference nor concept belong to linguistic data.
FUNCTIONAL (CONTEXTUAL) APPROACH
The supporters of this approach define meaning as the use of word in a language.
They believe that meaning should be studied through contexts. If the distribution
(position of a linguistic unit to other linguictic units) of two words is different we
can conclude that heir meanings are different too (Ex. He looked at me in surprise;
He's been looking for him for a half an hour.)
However, it is hardly possible to collect all contexts for reliable conclusion. In
practice a scholar is guided by his experience and intuition. On the whole, this
approach may be called complimentary to the referential definition and is applied
mainly in structural linguistics.
Types of meaning
The word "meaning" is not homogeneous. Its components are described as "types
of meaning". The two main types of meaning are grammatical and lexical
meaning.
The grammatical meaning is the component of meaning, recurrent in identical
sets of individual forms of words (e.g. reads, draws, writes – 3d person, singular;
books, boys – plurality; boy’s, father’s – possessive case).
The lexical meaning is the meaning proper to the linguistic unit in all its forms
and distribution (e.g. boy, boys, boy’s, boys’ – grammatical meaning and case are
different but in all of them we find the semantic component "male child").
Both grammatical meaning and lexical meaning make up the word meaning and
neither of them can exist without the other.
There’s also the 3d type: lexico-grammatical (part of speech) meaning. Third type
of meaning is called lexico-grammatical meaning (or part-of-speech meaning). It is
a common denominator of all the meanings of words belonging to a lexical-
grammatical class (nouns, verbs, adjectives etc. – all nouns have common meaning
oа thingness, while all verbs express process or state).
Denotational meaning – component of the lexical meaning which makes
communication possible. The second component of the lexical meaning is the
connotational component – the emotive charge and the stylistic value of the
word.
Connotation is the pragmatic communicative value the word receives depending on
where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what contexts it may be
used. There are four main types of connotations stylistic, emotional, evaluative and
expressive or intensifying.
Stylistic connotations is what the word conveys about the speaker's attitude to the
social circumstances and the appropriate functional style (slay vs kill), evaluative
connotation may show his approval or disapproval of the object spoken of (clique
vs group), emotional connotation conveys the speaker's emotions (mummy vs
mother), the degree of intensity (adore vs love) is conveyed by expressive or
intensifying connotation.The interdependence of connotations with denotative
meaning is also different for different types of connotations. Thus, for instance,
emotional connotation comes into being on the basis of denotative meaning but in
the course of time may substitute it by other types of connotation with general
emphasis, evaluation and colloquial stylistic overtone. E.g. terrific which originally
meant 'frightening' is now a colloquialism meaning 'very, very good' or 'very great':
terrific beauty, terrific pleasure.The orientation toward the subject-matter,
characteristic of the denotative meaning, is substituted here by pragmatic
orientation toward speaker and listener; it is not so much what is spoken about as
the attitude to it that matters.Fulfilling the significative and the communicative
functions of the word the denotative meaning is present in every word and may be
regarded as the central factor in the functioning of language.The expressive
function of the language (the speaker's feelings) and the pragmatic function (the
effect of words upon listeners) are rendered in connotations. Unlike the denotative
meaning, connotations are optional.
45. Word-Meaning and Meaning in Morphemes. Lexical Meaning. Part-of-speech Meaning. Differential Meaning. Distributional Meaning.
WORD - MEANING
Every word has two aspects: the outer aspect (its sound form) and the inner aspect
(its meaning) . Sound and meaning do not always constitute a constant unit even in
the same language. E.g. the word «temple» may denote «a part of a human head»
and «a large church» In such cases we have homonyms. One and the same word in
different syntactical relations can develop different meanings, e.g. the verb «treat»
in sentences:
a) He treated my words as a joke.
b) The book treats of poetry.
c) They treated me to sweets.
d) He treats his son cruelly.
In all these sentences the verb «treat» has different meanings and we can speak
about polysemy.
On the other hand, one and the same meaning can be expressed by different sound
forms, e.g. «pilot» , and «airman», «horror» and «terror». In such cases we have
synonyms.
Both the meaning and the sound can develop in the course of time independently.
E.g. the Old English /luvian/ is pronounced /l^v / in Modern English. On the other
hand, «board» primariliy means « a piece of wood sawn thin»
LEXICAL MEANING - NOTION
The lexical meaning of a word is the realization of a notion by means of a definite
language system. A word is a language unit, while a notion is a unit of thinking. A
notion cannot exict without a word expressing it in the language, but there are
words which do not express any notion but have a lexical meaning. Interjections
express emotions but not notions, but they have lexical meanings, e.g. Alas!
/disappointment/, Oh,my buttons! /surprise/ etc. There are also words which
express both, notions and emotions, e.g. girlie, a pig /when used metaphorically/.
The term «notion» was introduced into lexicology from logics. A notion denotes
the reflection in the mind of real objects and phenomena in their relations. Notions,
as a rule, are international, especially with the nations of the same cultural level.
While meanings can be nationally limited. Grouping of meanings in the semantic
structure of a word is determined by the whole system of every language. E.g. the
English verb «go» and its Russian equivalent «идти» have some meanings which
coincide: to move from place to place, to extend /the road goes to London/, to
work /Is your watch going?/. On the other hand, they have different meanings: in
Russian we say :»Вот он идет» , in English we use the verb «come» in this case.
In English we use the verb «go» in the combinations: «to go by bus», «to go by
train» etc. In Russian in these cases we use the verb «ехать».The number of
meanings does not correspond to the number of words, neither does the number of
notions. Their distribution in relation to words is peculiar in every language. The
Russian has two words for the English «man»: « мужчина» and «человек». In
English, however, «man» cannot be applied to a female person. We say in Russian:
«Она хороший человек». In English we use the word «person»/ She is a good
person»/Development of lexical meanings in any language is influenced by the
whole network of ties and relations between words and other aspects of the
language.
Differential meaning is the semantic component that serves to distinguish one word from others containing identical morphemes (e.g. bookshelf, bookcase, bookhaunter).
Distributional meaning is the meaning of order and arrangement of morphemes that make up the word (e.g. heartless X lessheart).
Identical morphemes may have different sound-form (e.g. divide, divisible, division – the root morpheme is represented phonetically in different ways. They are called allomorphs or morpheme variant of one and the same morpheme.
46. Word-Meaning and Motivation. Change of Meaning. Causes of Semantic Change. Nature of Semantic Change. Results of Semantic Change.
WORD - MEANING
Every word has two aspects: the outer aspect (its sound form) and the inner aspect
(its meaning) . Sound and meaning do not always constitute a constant unit even in
the same language. E.g. the word «temple» may denote «a part of a human head»
and «a large church» In such cases we have homonyms. One and the same word in
different syntactical relations can develop different meanings, e.g. the verb «treat»
in sentences:
a) He treated my words as a joke.
b) The book treats of poetry.
c) They treated me to sweets.
d) He treats his son cruelly.
In all these sentences the verb «treat» has different meanings and we can speak
about polysemy.
On the other hand, one and the same meaning can be expressed by different sound
forms, e.g. «pilot» , and «airman», «horror» and «terror». In such cases we have
synonyms.
Both the meaning and the sound can develop in the course of time independently.
E.g. the Old English /luvian/ is pronounced /l^v / in Modern English. On the other
hand, «board» primariliy means « a piece of wood sawn thin»
The development and change of the semantic structure of a word is always a
source of qualitative and quantitative development of the vocabulary.
All the types discussed depend upon some comparison between the earlier
(whether extinct or still in use) and the new meaning of the given word. This
comparison may be based on the difference between notions expressed or referents in
the real world that are pointed out, on the type of psychological association at work,
on evaluation of the latter by the speaker or, possibly, on some other feature.
The order in which various types are described will follow more or less closely
the diachronic classifications of M. Breal and H. Paul. No attempt at a new
classification is considered necessary. There seems to be no point in augmenting the
number of unsatisfactory schemes already offered in literature. The treatment is
therefore traditional.
M. Breal was probably the first to emphasize the fact that in passing from general
usage into some special sphere of communication a word as a rule undergoes some
sort of specialisation of its meaning. The word case, for instance, alongside its
general meaning of 'circumstances in which a person or a thing is' possesses special
meanings: in law ('a law suit'), in grammar (e.g. the Possessive case), in medicine ('a
patient', 'an illness'). Compare the following:
One of Charles's cases had been a child ill with a form of diphtheria. (C. P.
SNOW) (case = a patient).
The Solicitor whom I met at the Holfords’ sent me a case which any young man
at my stage would have thought himself lucky to get. (Idem) (case = a question
decided, in a court of law, a law suit)
The general, not specialized meaning is also very frequent in present-day English.
For example: At last we tiptoed up the broad slippery staircase, and went to our
rooms. But in my case not to sleep, immediately at least. (Idem) (case =
circumstances in which one is)
This difference is revealed in the difference of contexts in which these words occur, in
their different valency. Words connected with illnesses and medicine in the first
example, and words connected with law and court procedures in the second, form the
s e m a n t i c p a r a d i g m of the word case.
The word play suggests different notions to a child, a playwright, a footballer,
a musician or a chess-player and has in their speech different semantic paradigms.
The same applies to the noun cell as used by a biologist, an electrician, a nun or a
representative of the law; or the word gas as understood by a chemist, a housewife, a
motorist or a miner.
In all the examples considered above a word which formerly represented a notion of
a broader scope has come to render a notion of a narrower scope. When the meaning is
specialized, the word can name fewer objects, i.e. have fewer referents. At the same
time the content of the notion is being enriched, as it includes -a greater number of
relevant features by which the notion is characterized. Or as St. Ullmann puts it: "The
word is now applicable to more things but tells us less about them." The reduction of
scope accounts for the term "narrowing of the meaning" which is even more often used
than the term "specialization". We shall avoid the term "narrowing", since it is
somewhat misleading. Actually it is neither the meaning nor the notion, but the
scope of the notion that .is narrowed.
There is also a third term for the same phenomenon, namely "differentiation",
but it is not so widely used as the first two terms.
H. Paul, as well as many other authors, emphasizes the fact that this type of
semantic change is particularly frequent in vocabulary of professional and trade
groups.H. Paul's examples are from the German language but it is very easy to find
parallel cases in English. So this type of change is fairly universal and fails to disclose
any specifically English properties.The best known examples of specialization in the
general language are as follows: OE dēor 'wild beast' > ModE deer 'wild rum,inant
of a particular species' (the original meaning was still alive in Shakespeare's time as
is proved by the following quotation: Rats and mice and such small deer); OE mete
'food' >ModE meat 'edible flesh', i.e. only a particular species of food (the earlier
meaning is still noticeable in the compound sweetmeat). This last example deserves
special attention because the tendency of fixed context to preserve the original
meaning is very marked as is constantly proved by various examples. Other well-
worn examples are: OE fuзol 'bird' (cf. Germ Vogel) > ModE foal 'domestic birds'.
The old, meaning is still preserved in poetic diction and in set expressions, like
fowls of the air. Among its derivatives, fowler means 'a person who shoots or traps
wild birds for sport or food'; the shooting or trapping itself is called fowling; a fowling
piece is a gun. OE hund 'dog' (cf. . Germ Hund) >hound 'a species of hunting dog'.
Many words connected with literacy also show similar changes: thus, teach<.OE tæcan
'to show', 'to teach'; write <OE wrītan 'to write', 'to scratch', 'to score' (cf. Germ
reiβen)< writing in Europe had first the form of scratching on the bark of the trees.
Tracing these semantic changes the scholars can, as it were, witness the development
of culture.In the above examples the new meaning superseded the earlier one. Both
meanings can also coexist in the structure of a polysemantic word or be differentiated
locally. The word token < OE tāce, ║ Germ Zeichen originally had the broad meaning
of 'sign'. The semantic change that occurred in it illustrates systematic
interdependence within the vocabulary elements. Brought into competition with the
borrowed word sign it became restricted in use to a few cases of fixed context (a
love token, a token of respect, a token vote, a token payment) and consequently
restricted in meaning. In present-day English token means something small,
unimportant or cheap which represents something big, important or valuable. Other
examples of specialization are room, which alongside the new meaning keeps the old
one of 'space'; corn originally meaning 'grain', 'the seed of any cereal plant': locally
the word becomes specialized and is understood to denote the leading crop of the
district; hence in England corn means 'wheat', in Scotland 'oats', whereas in the
USA, as an ellipsis for Indian corn, it came to mean 'maize'.
47. Meaning and Polysemy. Semantic Structure of Polysemantic Words. Diachronic Approach. Synchronic Approach. Historical Changeability of Semantic Structure. Polysemy and Homonymy.
All lexical units semantically fall into two types:
1. monosemantic words (the words having only one lexical meaning and
denoting, accordingly, one concept)
2. Polysementic words (words having several meanings, thus denoting a
whole set of related concepts grouped according to the national peculiarities
of a given language)
Most of the lexical units marked by high frequency value arepolysemantic.
Ex. The hand (the meaning of hand is часовая стрелка) of my watch points to
three.
Give me your hand (the meaning of hand is рука)
The farmer has hired an extra hand (the meaning of handis с/х рабочий)
The different semantic variants of polysemantic word manifest (проявлять)
themselves in different word combination, i.e. constructions which remain
constant irrespective of the actual sentences in which they occur.
(происходить)Ex. The meaning of the verb to make are manifested in the
structural pattern “to make smth (to make a dress), to make smbd (to make
friends), to make smbd do smth” (to make a child wash his hands)
Polysemy is characteristic of most words in many languages. All the lexical and
lexico-grammatical variants of a word taken together form its semantic structure or
semantic paradigm.Thus, in the semantic structure of the wordyouth three lexico-
grammatical variants may be distinguished: the first is an abstract uncountable
noun, as in the friends of one’s youth, the second is a countable personal noun ‘a
young man’ (plural youths) that can be substituted by the pronoun he in the
singular and they in the plural; the third \{a collective noun ‘young men and
women’ having only one form, that of the singular, substituted by the
pronoun they.Within the first lexico-grammatical variant two shades of meaning
can be distinguished with two different referents, one denoting the state of being
young, and the other the time of being young. These shades of meaning are
recognized] due to the lexical peculiarities of distribution and sometimes are
blended! together as in to feel that one’s youth has gone, where both the time and
the state can be meant. These variants form a structured set because they are
expressed by the same sound complex and are interrelated in meaning as they all
contain the semantic component ‘young’ and can be explained by means of one
another.Other oppositions are concrete :: abstract; main/
primary::secondary;central::peripheric;nar row: :extended; general:
:special/particular, and so on. In each case the comparison takes place within the
semantic structure of one word. They are characterized one against the other.Take,
for example, the noun screen. We find it in its direct meaning when it names a
movable piece of furniture used to hide something or protect somebody, as in the
case of fire-screen placed in front of a fireplace. The meaning is figurative when
the word is applied to anything which protects by hiding, as in smoke screen. We
define this meaning as figurative comparing it to the first that we called direct.
Again, when by a screen the speaker means ‘a silver-coloured sheet on which
cabulary as compared with Russian, due to the monosyllabic character of English
and the predominance of root words. The greater the relative frequency of the
word, the greater the number of variants that constitute its semantic structure, i.e.
the more polysemantic it is. This regularity is of course a statistical, not a rigid
one.1Consider some of the variants of a very frequent, and consequently
polysemantic word run. We define the main variant as ‘to go by moving the legs
quickly’ as in: Tired as I was, I began to run frantically home. The lexical meaning
does not change in the forms ran or running. The basic meaning may be extended
to inanimate things: / caught the bus that runs between C and B;or the
word run may be used figuratively: It makes the blood run cold. Both the
components ‘on foot’ and ‘quickly’ are suppressed in these two last examples, as
well as in The car runs on petrol. The idea of motion remains but it is reduced to
‘operate or function’.The difference of meaning is reflected in the difference of
syntactic valency. It is impossible to use this variant about humans and say: *We
humans run on food. The active-passive transformation is possible when the
meaning implies ‘management’: The Co-op runs this self-service shop - This self-
service shop is run by the Co-op, but */ was run by home is obviously
nonsense.Every meaning in language and every difference in meaning is signalled
either by the form of the word itself or by context, i.e. its syntag-matic relations
depending on the position in the spoken chain. The unity of the two facets of a
linguistic sign - its form and its content in the case of a polysemantic word - is kept
in its lexico-grammatical variant.If the variants are classified not only by
comparing them inside the semantic structure of the word but according to the
style and sphere of language in which they may occur, if they have stylistic
connotations, the classification is stylistical. All the words are classified into stylis-
tically neutral and stylistically coloured. The latter may be classified into
bookish and colloquial, bookish styles in their turn may be (a) general, (b)
poetical, (c) scientific or learned, while colloquial styles are subdivided into
(a) literary colloquial, (b) familiar colloquia 1, (c) slang.If we are primarily
interested in the historical perspective, the meanings will be classified according
to their genetic characteristic and their growing or diminishing role in the
language. In this way the following terms are used: etymological, i.e. the
earliest known meaning; archaic, i.e. the meaning superseded at present by a
newer one but still remaining in certain collocations; obsolete, gone out of use;
present-day meaning, which is the one most frequent in the present-day language
and the original meaning serving as basis for the derived ones.It is very
important to pay attention to the fact that one and the same meaning can at once
belong, in accordance with different points, to different groups. These features of
meaning may therefore serve as distinctive features describing each meaning in
its relationship to the others.Diachronic and synchronic ties are thus closely
interconnected as the new meanings are understood thanks to their motivation by
the older meanings.
48. Homonymy of Words and Homonymy of Word-Forms. Classification of Homonyms. Graphic and Sound-Form of Homonyms. Sources of Homonymy. Polysemy and Homonymy.
Classification of homonymsHomonyms are words that are identical in their sound-form or spelling but different in
meaning and distribution.1) Homonyms proper are words similar in their sound-form and graphic but different in
meaning (e.g. "a ball"- a round object for playing; "a ball"- a meeting for dances).2) Homophones are words similar in their sound-form but different in spelling and meaning
(e.g. "peace" - "piece", "sight"- "site").3) Homographs are words which have similar spelling but different sound-form and
meaning (e.g. "a row" [rau]- "a quarrel"; "a row" [rəu] - "a number of persons or things in a more or less straight line")
There is another classification by Смирницкий. According to the type of meaning in which homonyms differ, homonyms proper can be classified into:
I. Lexical homonyms - different in lexical meaning (e.g. "ball"); II. Lexical-grammatical homonyms which differ in lexical-grammatical meanings (e.g. "a
seal" - тюлень, "to seal" - запечатывать).III. Grammatical homonyms which differ in grammatical meaning only (e.g. "used" - Past
Indefinite, "used"- Past Participle; "pupils"- the meaning of plurality, "pupil's"- the meaning of possessive case).
All cases of homonymy may be subdivided into full and partial homonymy. If words are identical in all their forms, they are full homonyms (e.g. "ball"-"ball"). But: "a seal" - "to seal" have only two homonymous forms, hence, they are partial homonyms.
Sources of homonyms
On of source of homonyms is a phonetic change, which a word undergoes1 in
the course of it historical development. As a result of such changes, less or more
words, which were formerly pronounced differently, may develop identical
sound forms and thus become homonyms.
1 претерпевают
“Night” and “knight”, for instance, were not homonyms in Old English (O.E.) as
the initial “k” in the second word was pronounced. The verb “to write” in O.E.
had the form “to writan” and the adjective “right” had the form “reht” or “riht”.
Another source of homonyms is borrowing. A borrowed word may, in the final
stage of the phonetic adaptation conclude the form either with a native word or
another borrowing. So in the group of homonyms “rite n – to write – right adj.”
The second and third words are of native origin, whereas “rite” is Latin
borrowing (Latin “ritus”); “bank “ n (“a shore”) is a native word, and bank n (a
financial institution) is an Italian borrowing.
Word building also contributes significantly to the growth of homonymy, the
most important type of it being conversion. Such pairs of words as “comb” n –
“comb” v; “pale” adj. – “pale” v; “make” v – “make” n, etc. are numerous in
vocabulary. Homonyms of this type refer to different categories of parts of
speech and called lexico-grammatical homonyms.
Shortening is a further type of word-building, which increases the number of
homonyms. For example “fan” (an enthusiastic admirer of some sportsmen,
actor, singer, etc.) is a shortening produced from “fanatic” [f nætik]. Its
homonym is a Latin borrowing “fan” – an element for waving and produce some
cool wind.2
The noun, for instance, “rep”, a kind of fabric, has 4 homonyms:
1) rep = repertory;
2) rep = representative;
3) rep = reputation;
4) rep = repetition (in school slang smth, need to know by hard)
A further course of homonyms is called split 3 polysemy : 2 or more homonyms
can originate different meanings of the same word, when for some reason the
semantic structure of the word breaks into several parts. We may illustrate this
by the 3 following homonyms of the word “spring”, means:
1) The act of springing, leap;2 веер3 расщепление
2) A place, where a steam of water comes up out to the sky;
3) A season of the year.
Historically all three originate from the same verb with meaning to jump, to
leap. This is the Old English word “springun”4. So that the meaning of the first
homonym is the oldest or the most etymological one. The meanings of the 2nd
and the 3rd examples were originally made in metaphor. As the head of the strim,
the water something lips out of the earth, so that metaphorically such a place
could be described as a “leap”. On the other hand, the season of the year,
following winter, could be poetically defined as a “leap” from the darkness and
cold into sunlight and life.
Polysemy and homonymy.
One of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the demarcation line
between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between different meanings of one word
and the meanings of two homonymous words. Synchronically the differentiation
between homonymy and polysemy is a rule wholly based on the semantic
criterion; it is usually held that, if a connection of the various meanings is
apprehended by the speaker, these are to be considered as making up the semantic
structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a case of homonymy, not
polysemy. Thus the semantic criterion implies that the difference between
polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the differentiation between related
and unrelated meanings.The formal criteria: distribution and spelling. The
criterion of distribution suggested by some linguists is undoubtedly helpful, but
mainly in cases of lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonymy. For example,
in the homonymic pair paper « — (to) paper v the noun may be preceded by the
article and followed by a verb; (to) paper can never be found in identical
distribution. This formal criterion can be used to discriminate not only lexico-
grammatical but also grammatical homonyms, but it often fails in cases of lexical
homonymy, not differentiated by means of spelling.Homonyms differing in
graphic form, e.g. such lexical homonyms as knight — night or flower — flour,
4 прыгать
are easily perceived to be two different lexical units as any formal difference of
words is felt as indicative of the existence of two separate lexical units. Conversely
lexical homonyms identical both in pronunciation and spelling are often
apprehended as different meanings of one word.We have to admit that no formal
means have yet been found to differentiate between several meanings of one word
and the meanings of its homonyms
49. Meaning Relations in Paradigmatics and Semantic Classification of
Words. Semantic Fields. Hyponymic Structures and Lexico-semantic Groups.
Semantic Equivalence and Synonymy. Criteria of Synonymity. Patterns of
Synonymic Sets in Modern English. Semantic Contrasts and Antonymy.
Semantic Similarity of Morphemes and Word-Families.
The grouping out of English word stock based on the principle of proximity, may be graphically presented by means of “concentric circles”.
lexico-semantic groups lexical sets synonyms
semantic field
The relations between layers are that of inclusion.
The most general term – hyperonym, more special – hyponym (member of the group). The meaning of the word “plant” includes the idea conveyed by “flower”, which in its turn
include the notion of any particular flower. Flower – hyperonim to… and plant – hyponym to…
Hyponymic relations are always hierarchic. If we imply substitution rules we shall see the hyponyms may be replaced be hyperonims but not vice versa (e.g. I bought roses yesterday. “flower” – the sentence won’t change its meaning).
Words describing different sides of one and the same general notion are united in a lexico-semantic group if: a) the underlying notion is not too generalized and all-embracing, like the notions of “time”, “life”, “process”; b) the reference to the underlying is not just an implication in the meaning of lexical unit but forms an essential part in its semantics.
Thus, it is possible to single out the lexico-semantic group of names of “colours” (e.g. pink, red, black, green, white); lexico-semantic group of verbs denoting “physical movement” (e.g. to go, to turn, to run) or “destruction” (e.g. to ruin, to destroy, to explode, to kill).
Criteria of Synonymity.
It should be pointed out that neither the traditional definition of synonyms
nor the modified version suggested here, provides for any objective criterion of
similarity of meaning. Judgement as to semantic similarity is based solely on the
linguistic intuition of the analyst.
Plant
Grass Trees Bushes FlowersRoses
Tulips
Daises
Violets
It is sometimes argued that the meaning of two words is identical if they can
denote the same referent, in other words, if an object or a certain class of objects
can always be denoted by either of the two words. For example in the sentence
“Washington is the capital of the United States”–“Washington” and “the capital
of the United States” have obviously the same referent, but there is no linguistic
relationship of synonymity between the two lexical units.
Recently attempts have been made to introduce into the definition of
synonymity the criterion of interchangeability in linguistic contexts. It is argued
that for the linguist similarity of meaning implies that the words are synonymous
if either of them can occur in the same context. In this case the relationship of
synonymity is defined as follows: “If A and В have almost identical environment
except chiefly for sentences which contain both, we say they are synonyms” (cf.
eye-doctor, occulist) 1.
Another well-known definition also proceeding from the contextual
approach is the definition of synonyms as words, which can replace each other in
any given context without the slightest alteration either in the denotational or
connotational meaning. The contextual approach also invites criticism as words
interchangeable in any given context are rarely found. This fact may be explained
as follows: firstly, words synonymous in some lexical contexts may display no
synonymity in others. As one of the English scholars aptly remarks, the
comparison of the sentences “the rainfall in April was abnormal” and “the rainfall
in April was exceptional” may give us grounds for assuming that exceptional and
abnormal are synonymous. The same adjectives in a different context are by no
means synonymous, as we may see by comparing “my son is exceptional “and”
my son is abnormal” 1.
Secondly, it is evident that interchangeability alone cannot serve as a
criterion of synonymity. We may safely assume that synonyms are words
11 See: St. Ullmann. The Principles of Semantics. Glasgow. 1957, p. 10811 See: R. Quirk. The Use of English. London. 1962. p. 129.
interchangeable in some contexts. But the reserve is certainly not true as
semantically different words of the same part of speech are, as a rule,
interchangeable in quite a number of contexts. For example, in the sentence "I
saw a little girl playing'in the garden" the adjective little may be formally replaced
by a number of semantically different adjectives, e.g. pretty, tall, English etc.
Thus a more acceptable definition of synonyms seems to be the following:
synonyms are words different in their sound-form, but similar in their denotational
meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts.
Theoretically, the number of contexts in which these words are
interchangeable may calculate the degree of synonymity of words. The simplest
technique of such semantic analysis is substitution in various contexts. It is argued
those two synonymous adjectives, e.g. deep and profound, could be analysed in
relation to each other by ascertaining how far they are interchangeable in
different contexts, say, in combination with water, voice, remark, relief; what
changes of denotational meaning and emotive charge occur when they are
interchanged (cf. deep relief- profound relief)\ what is their proper antonym in
each of these combinations {shallow, high, superficial)', in how many of the
possible contexts they are interchangeable without any considerable alteration of
the denotational meaning, etc.
Patterns of Synonymic Sets in Modern English.
The English word-stock is extremely rich in synonyms, which can be largely
accounted for by abundant borrowing. Quite a number of words in a synonymic
set are usually of Latin or French origin. For instance, out of thirteen words
making up the set see, behold, descry, espy, view, survey, contemplate, observe,
notice, remark, note, discern, perceive only see, and behold can be traced back to
Old English (O.E. seon and behealdan), all others are either French or Latin
borrowings.Thus, a characteristic pattern of English synonymic sets is the pattern
including the native and the borrowed words. Among the best investigated are
the so-called double-scale patterns: native versus Latin (e.g. bodily-corporal,
brotherly -fraternal); native versus Greek or French (e.g. answer ~ reply, fiddle —
violin). In most cases the synonyms differ in their stylistic reference, too. The
native word is usually colloquial (e.g. bodily, brotherly), whereas the borrowed
word may as a rule be described as bookish or highly literary (e.g. corporal,
fraternal).
Side by side with this pattern there exits in English a subsidiary one based on
a triple-scale of synonyms: native — French and Latin or Greek [e.g. begin (start)
— commence (Fr.) — initiate (L); rise — mount (Fr.) -ascend (L)]. In most of these
sets the native synonym is felt as more colloquial,, the Latin or Greek one is
characterized by bookish stylistic reference, whereas the French stands between
the two extremes.There are some minor points of interest that should be
discussed in connection with the problem of synonymy. It has often been found
that subject prominent in the interests of a community tend to attract a large of
synonyms. It is common knowledge that in Beowulf there are 37 synonyms for
hero or prince and at least a dozen for battle and fight. The same epic contains 17
expressions for sea to which 13 more may be added from other English poems of
that period. In Modern English there are at least twenty words used to denote
money: beam, bucks, the chips, do-re-mi, the needful wherewithal, etc., this
linguistic phenomenon is usually described as the law of synonymic attraction.
It has also been observed that when a particular word is given a transferred
meaning its synonyms tend to develop along parallel lines. We know that “in early
New English the verb overlook was employed in the meaning of 'look with an evil
eye upon, cast a spell over” from which there developed the meaning “deceive”
first recorded in 1596. Exactly half a century later we find oversee a synonym of
overlook employed in the meaning of “deceive”. This form of analogy active in the
semantic development of synonyms is referred to as “radiation of synonyms”.
Words can be classified in different ways. The classification of words may be
based upon: similarity of meanings and polarity of meanings of words. The
similarity of meanings is found in synonymic groups.
Synonyms are words belonging to the same part of speech different in
morphemic composition and phonemic shape but identical or similar in meaning
and interchangeable at least in some contexts. Ex. jump, hop, leap, spring, defend,
protect, guard shield; absence, privation, lack, want; error mistake; go, leave,
depart. Complete synonyms do not exist. Bloomfield says each linguistic form has
a constant and specific meaning.Each synonymic group contains one word the
meaning of which has no additional connotations (it can be used in different
styles).Prof. Aznaurova E. S. points out that stylistic synonyms carry emotional
evaluate information. Synonyms are distributionally different words. Ex. "too",
"also", "as well" are synonyms. They always occur in different surroundings. The
synonyms differ in their collocability. Ex. We compare the collocability of
synonyms "to book" and "to buy".
Possible: Impossible:
To book in advance To buy in advance
To book somebody To buy somebody
To book seats To buy seats
To buy cheaply To book cheaply
To buy from a person To book from a person
To buy a house To book a house
In the course of its long history the English language has adopted a great
many words from foreign languages all over the world. One of the consequences
of extensive borrowing was the appearance of numerous derivational affixes in
the English language. Under certain circumstances of them came to overlap
semantical ly to a certain extent both another and with the native affixes. For
instance, the suffix —er of native origin denoting the agent is synonymous to the
suffix —ist of Greek origin which came into the English language through Latin in
the 16l century. 1Both suffixes occur in nouns denoting the agent, e.g. teacher,
driller; journalist, botanist, economist, etc. Being synonymous these suffixes
naturally differ from each other in some respects. Unlike the suffix —er, the suffix
— ist is:
1. Mostly combined with noun-bases, e.g. violinist etc;
2. As a rule, added to bases of non-Germanic origin and very seldom to
bases of Germanic origin, e.g. walkist, rightist;
3. Usedlo form nouns denoting those who adhere to a doctrine or
system, a political party, an ideology or the like, e.g. communist, etc. words in —
ist denoting 'the upholder of a principle' are usually matched by an abstract noun
-ism. Sometimes synonymous suffixes differ in emotive charge. For instance, the
suffix —eer also denoting the agent is characterized, in particular, by its
derogative force, e.g. sonneteer — стихоплет, profiteer -спекулянт, etc.
Semantic contrasts and antonymyThe semantic relations of opposition are the basis for grouping antonyms. The term
"antonym" is of Greek origin and means “opposite name”. It is used to describe words different in some form and characterised by different types of semantic contrast of denotational meaning and interchangeability at least in some contexts.
Structurally, all antonyms can be subdivided into absolute (having different roots) and derivational (of the same root), (e.g. "right"- "wrong"; "to arrive"- "to leave" are absolute antonyms; but "to fit" - "to unfit" are derivational).
Semantically, all antonyms can be divided in at least 3 groups:a) Contradictories. They express contradictory notions which are mutually opposed and
deny each other. Their relations can be described by the formula "A versus NOT A": alive vs. dead (not alive); patient vs. impatient (not patient). Contradictories may be polar or relative (to hate- to love [not to love doesn't mean "hate"]).
b) Contraries are also mutually opposed, but they admit some possibility between themselves because they are gradable (e.g. cold – hot, warm; hot – cold, cool). This group also includes words opposed by the presence of such components of meaning as SEX and AGE (man -woman; man - boy etc.).
c) Incompatibles. The relations between them are not of contradiction but of exclusion. They exclude possibilities of other words from the same semantic set (e.g. "red"- doesn't mean that it is opposed to white it means all other colors; the same is true to such words as "morning", "day", "night" etc.).
There is another type of opposition which is formed with reversive antonyms. They imply the denotation of the same referent, but viewed from different points (e.g. to buy – to sell, to give – to receive, to cause – to suffer)
A polysemantic word may have as many antonyms as it has meanings. But not all words and meanings have antonyms!!! (e.g. "a table"- it's difficult to find an antonym, "a book").
Relations of antonymy are limited to a certain context + they serve to differentiate
11 Заботкина В.И. Новая лексика современного английского языка. М., 1989
meanings of a polysemantic word (e.g. slice of bread - "thick" vs. "thin" BUT: person - "fat" vs. "thin").
Semantic similarity of morphemes. The words of family. Morpheme is the smallest part of the word which has both meaning and structure. Lexical groups compose of words with semantically and phonetically identical root morphemes are defined as +. Lead- leader – leadership. Form – formal – formality. Dark – darken – darkness. Members of the word family belong to the different parts of speech and joined together only by the identity of root morphemes. In some cases however root morpheme may be different: sun –sunny- solar. Oral-orally – mouth. Brother – brotherly – fraternal. This is lexical supplision. Formation of related words of a word family from phonetically different roots. In this case we are likely to encounter etimologically different words: brother, mouth – German origin. Fraternal, oral – latin origin.
50. Word groups and phraseological units. Lexical Valency. Grammatical Valency. Structure of Word-Groups. Distribution as a Criterion of Classification. Meaning of Word-Groups.
The main sources of phraseological units.The main sources of native phraseological units are:1. Terminological and professional lexics. E.g. physics: center of gravity (центр тяжести), specific weight (удельный вес): navigation: cut the painter (обрубить канат), lower one's colours (спустить свой флаг) military sphere: fall into line (стать в строй).2. British literature, e.g. the green-eyed monster — ‘jealousy’ (W.Shakespeare); fall on evil days — ‘live in poverty after having enjoyed better times' (J.Milton): how goes the enemy? (Ch. Dickens) — ‘what is the time?’3. British traditions and customs, e.g. baker's dozen — ‘a group of thirteen’. In the past British merchants of bread received from bakers thirteen loaves instead of twelve and the thirteenth loaf was merchants' profit.4. Superstitions and legends, e.g. a black sheep — ‘a less successful or more immoral person in a family or a group'. 5.historical facts and events, personalities, e.g. as well be hanged (or hung) for a sheep as a lamb — ‘something that you say when you are going to be punished for something so you decide to do something worse because your punishment will not be any more severe’. 6. Phenomena and facts of everyday life, e.g. carry coals to Newcastle — ‘to take something to a place where there is plenty of it available'. The main sources of borrowed phraseological units are:1. The Holy Script, e.g. the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing — ‘communication in an organization is bad so that one part does not know what
is happening in another pan.2. Ancient legends and myths belonging to different religious or cultural traditions, e.g. to cut the Gordian knot — ‘to deal with a difficult problem in a strong, simple and effective wav’ 3. Facts and events of the world history, e.g. to cross the Rubicon to do something which will have very' important results which cannot be changed after.4. Variants of the English language, e.g. a heavy hitter — ‘someone who is powerful and has achieved a lot’ (American).5. Other languages (classical and modern), e.g. second to none — ‘equal with any other and better than most* (from Latin: nulli secundus).
Lexical and grammatical valency.
There are two factors that influence the ability of words to form word-groups.
They are lexical and grammatical valency of words. The aptness of a word to
appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency. The noun job,
for example, is often combined with such adjectives as backbreakingt difficult,
hard: full-time, part-time, summer, cushy, easy; demanding: menial, etc. The noun
myth may be a component of a number of word-groups, e.g. to create a myth, to
dispel a myth, to explode a myth, myths and legends, etc. The point is that
compatibility of words is determined by restrictions imposed by the inner structure
of the English word stock (e.g. a bright idea = a good idea; but it is impossible to
say "a bright performance", or "a bright film"; "heavy metal" means difficult to
digest, but it is impossible to say "heavy cheese"; to take a chance, but it is
possible to say only "to take precautions").
Grammatical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in specific gram-l
structures. The minimal gram-l context in which words are used when brought
together to form word- groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-
groups. For instance, the verb to offer can be followed by the infinitive (to offer to
do smth.) and the noun (to offer a cup of tea). The verb to suggest can be followed
by the gerund (to suggest doing smth.) and the noun (to suggest an idea). The
grammatical valency of these verbs is different.
The adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different gr-l valency as
clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: adjective + preposition *ai' +
noun (cleier at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the
same word-group pattern.
51. Phraseological Units. Free Word-Groups, Versus Set-Phrases.
Phraseological Units, Idioms,Word-Equivalents. Criteria of Stability and
Lack of Motivation. Classification. Phraseological Units and Idioms.
Phraseology as a Subsystem of Language.
Phraseological Unit (also called idiom), a word group with a fixed lexical
composition and grammatical structure; its meaning, which is familiar to native
speakers of the given language, is generally figurative and cannot be derived from
the meanings of the phraseological unit’s component parts. The meanings of
phraseological units are the result of the given language’s historical
development.There are several types of phraseological units, as follows. In
phraseological concretions the literal and figurative meanings are totally unrelated,
as in tochit’ liasy (“to whittle a piece of linden wood”; figuratively, “to chatter”)
or sobaku s”est’ (“to know inside out”; literally, “to eat a dog”). Other
phraseological units have a meaning that is derived from the meaning of the
component parts, as in plyt’ po techeniiu (“to flow with the current”).
Phraseological collocations include a word or words with a meaning that is both
literal and figurative, as in glubokaia tishina (“profound silence”). Another type of
phraseological unit is the idiomatic expression, a word group whose structure and
meaning are fixed.Other classifications of phraseological units acccording to type
exist as well. They include classifications based on the restrictions in the selection
of variable structural elements, those based on the fixed or variable composition of
the word components, and those based on the degree to which the phraseological
unit’s structure and components are fixed. The aggregate of phraseological units
differing in terms of meaning and structure constitutes a language’s stock of
idioms.
A word-group is the largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more than one word
but expressing one global concept.
The lexical meaning of the word groups is the combined lexical meaning of the
component words. The meaning of the word groups is motivated by the meanings
of the component members and is supported by the structural pattern. But it’s not a
mere sum total of all these meanings! Polysemantic words are used in word groups
only in 1 of their meanings. These meanings of the component words in such word
groups are mutually interdependent and inseparable (blind man – «a human being
unable to see», blind type – «the copy isn’t readable).Word groups possess not
only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of
arrangement of their constituents. The structural pattern of word groups is the
carrier of a certain semantic component not necessarily dependent on the actual
lexical meaning of its members (school grammar – «grammar which is taught in
school», grammar school – «a type of school»). We have to distinguish between
the structural meaning of a given type of word groups as such and the lexical
meaning of its constituents.It is often argued that the meaning of word groups is
also dependent on some extra-linguistic factors – on the situation in which word
groups are habitually used by native speakers.Words put together to form lexical
units make phrases or word-groups. One must recall that lexicology deals with
words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups.
The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary. Some
word-groups, e.g. at least, point of view, by means, to take place, etc. seem to be
functionally and semantically inseparable. They are usually described as set
phrases, word-equivalents or phraseological units and are studied by the branch of
lexicology which is known as phraseology. In other word-groups such as to take
lessons, kind to people, a week ago, the component-members seem to possess
greater semantic and structural independence. Word-groups of this type are defined
as free word-groups or phrases and are studied in syntax.Before discussing
phraseology it is necessary to outline the features common to various word-groups
irrespective of the degree of structural and semantic cohesion of the component-
words.There are two factors which are important in uniting words into word-
groups:
– the lexical valency of words;
– the grammatical valency of words.
An idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, "special
feature, special phrasing", f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, "one’s own") is a combination of
words that has a figurative meaning, due to its common usage. An idiom's
figurative meaning is separate from the literal meaning ordefinition of the words of
which it is made.[1] Idioms are numerous and they occur frequently in all
languages. There are estimated to be at least 25,000 idiomatic expressions in
the English language.[2]
equivalent word - two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be
synonymous relative to that context
Criteria of Stability and Lack of Motivation
Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that
cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. This
definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential features of
phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and lack of
motivation.1 It is consequently assumed that unlike components of free word-
groups which may vary according to the needs of communication, member-words
of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations.
Thus, for example, the constituent red in the free word-group red flower may, if
necessary, be substituted for by any other adjective denoting colour (blue, white,
etc.), without essentially changing the denotational meaning of the word-group
under discussion (a flower of a certain colour). In the phraseological unit red
tape (bureaucratic “methods) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the
adjective would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group.
A blue (black, white, etc.) tape would mean ‘a tape of a certain colour’. It follows
that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning
cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and that it exists as a
ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its lexical
components. It is also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is not
confined to its lexical components. Grammatical structure of phraseological units
is to a certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the word-
groups red flower and red tape is identical (A + +N), the noun flower may be used
in the plural (red flowers), whereas no such change is possible in the
phraseological unit red tape; red tapes would then denote ‘tapes of red colour’ but
not ‘bureaucratic methods’. This is also true of other types of phraseological units,
e.g. what will Mrs. Grundy say?, where the verbal component is invariably
reproduced in the same grammatical form.
1.1. PHRASEOLOGY AS A SUBSYSTEM OF LANGUAGE
By phraseology I mean the branch of linguistics dealing with stable word-
combinations characterized by certain transference of meaning.Despite differences
of opinion, most authors agree upon some points concerning the distinctive
features of phraseological units, such as:
1. Integrity (or transference) of meaning means that none of the idiom
components is separately associated with any referents of objective reality, and the
meaning of the whole unit cannot be deduced from the meanings of its
components;
2. Stability (lexical and grammatical) means that no lexical substitution is
possible in an idiom in comparison with free or variable word-combinations (with
an exception of some cases when such substitutions are made by the author
intentionally). The experiments conducted in the 1990s showed that, the meaning
of an idiom is not exactly identical to its literal paraphrase given in the dictionary
entry. That is why we may speak about lexical flexibility of many units if they are
used in a creative manner. Lexical stability is usually accompanied by grammatical
stability which prohibits any grammatical changes;
3. Separability means that the structure of an idiom is not something
indivisible, certain modifications are possible within certain boundaries. Here we
meet with the so-called lexical and grammatical variants. To illustrate this point I
shall give some examples: "as hungry as a wolf (as a hunter)", "as safe as a house
(houses)" in English, «как (будто, словно, точно) в воду опушенный»,
«оседлать своего (любимого) конька», «раскидывать умом (мозгами)
Раскинуть (пораскинуть) умом (мозгами)» in Russian.
4. Expressivity and emotiveness means that idioms are also characterized by
stylistic colouring. In other words, they evoke emotions or add expressiveness.
On the whole phraseological units, even if they present a certain pattern, do
not generate new phrases. They are unique. Interlanguage comparison, the aim of
which is the exposure of phraseological conformities, forms the basis of a number
of theoretical and applied trends of modern linguistic research, including the theory
and practice of phraseography. But the question of determining the factors of
interlanguage phraseological conformities as the main concept and the criterion of
choosing phraseological equivalents and analogues as the aspect concepts is still at
issue.The analysis of special literature during the last decades shows that the
majority of linguists consider the coincidence of semantic structure, grammatical
(or syntactical) organization and componential (lexeme) structure the main criteria
in defining the types of interlanguage phraseological conformities/disparities with
the undoubted primacy of semantic structure.Comparing the three approaches
discussed above (semantic, functional, and contextual) we have ample ground to
conclude that have very much in common as, the main criteria of phraseological
units appear to be essentially the same, i.e. stability and idiomaticity or lack of
motivation. It should be noted however that these criteria as elaborated in the three
approaches are sufficient mainly to single out extreme cases: highly idiomatic non-
variable and free (or variable) word- groups.
52. Word-Structure. Segmentation of Words into Morphemes. Types of
Word Segmentability. Classification of Morphemes. Morphemic Types of
Words.
Segmentation of Words into Morphemes
Close observation and comparison of words clearly shows that a great many
words have a composite nature and are made up of smaller units, each possessing
sound-form and meaning. These are generally referred to as morphemes defined as
the smallest indivisible two-facet language units. For instance, words like boiler,
driller fall into the morphemes boil-, drill- and -er by virtue of the recurrence of the
morpheme -er in these and other similar words and of the morphemes boil- and
drill- in to boil, a boil, boiling and to drill, a drill, drilling, a drill-press, etc.
Likewise, words like flower-pot and shoe-lace are segmented into the morphemes
flower-, pot-, shoe- and lace- (cf. flower-show, flowerful, etc., shoe-brush,
shoeless, etc., on the one hand; and pot-lid, pottery, etc., lace-boots, lacing, etc., on
the other).Like a word a morpheme is a two-facet language unit, an association of a
certain meaning with a certain sound-pattern. Unlike a word a morpheme is not an
autonomous unit and can occur in speech only as a constituent part of the word.
Morphemes cannot be segmented into smaller units without losing their
constitutive essence, i.e. two-facetedness, association of a certain meaning with a
given sound-pattern, cf. the morpheme lace- denoting 'a string or cord put through
small holes in shoes', etc.; 'to draw edges together' and the constituent phonemes
[l], [ei], [s] entirely without meaning.Identification of morphemes in various texts
shows that morphemes may have different phonemic shapes.In the word-cluster
please, pleasing, pleasure, pleasant the root-morpheme is represented by phonemic
shapes: [pli:z] in please, pleasing, [plez] in pleasure and [plez] in pleasant. In such
cases we say that the phonemic shapes of the word stand in complementary
distribution or in alternation with each other. All the representations of the given
morpheme that manifest alteration are called allomorphs of that morpheme or
morpheme variants. Thus [pli:z, plez] and [рlез] are allomorphs of оде and the
same morpheme. The root-morphemes in the word-cluster duke, ducal, duchess,
duchy or poor, poverty may also serve as examples of the allomorphs of one
morpheme.
TYPES OF WORD-SEGMENTABILITY
Word-segmentability is the division of words into morphemes. Three types
of morphemic segmentability of words are distinguished: complete, conditional,
defective.
5.1. COMPLETE SEGMENTABILITY
Complete segmentability is characteristic of words, the morphemic
structure of which is transparent enough, as their individual morphemes clearly
stand out within the word and can be easily isolated. The morphemes making up
words of complete segmentability are called morpheme proper or full
morphemes. The transparent morphemic structure of the segmentable words
useless, hopeful is conditioned by the fact that their constituent morphemes recur
with the same meaning in other words: use, to use, a hope, to hope and homeless,
powerful.
5.2. CONDITIONAL SEGMENTSBILITY
Conditional segmentability characterizes words whose segmentation into
the constituent morphemes is doubtful for semantic reasons. In the words retain,
detain or deceive, receive the sound-cluster – [ri-] and [di-] seem to be singled out
easily due to their recurrence in a number of words. But, they have nothing in
common with the phonetically identical morphemes re-, de-, for instance, in
rewrite, reorganize or decode, reorganize. Neither the sound-cluster [ri-], [di-] nor
[-tain], [si:v] possess any lexical or part-of-speech meaning of their own. The types
of meaning that can be ascribed to them are differential and distributional: the [ri-]
distinguishes retain from detain and the [-tein] distinguishes retain from receive,
whereas their order and arrangement point to the status of the re-, de- as different
from that of the –tain and –ceive within the structure of the words. The morphemes
making up words of conditional segmentability do not rise to the status of full
morphemes for semantic reason and that is why are called pseudo-morphemes or
quasi-morphemes.
5.3. DEFECTIVE SEGMENTABILITY
Defective segmentability is the property of words whose component
morphemes seldom or never recur in other words. One of the component
morphemes of these words is a unique morpheme in the sense that it does not recur
in a different linguistic environment. A unique morpheme is isolated and
understood as meaningful because the constituent morphemes display a more or
less clear denotational meaning. In the word hamlet the morpheme -let has the
meaning of diminutiveness. This morpheme occurs in the words ringlet, leaflet,
streamlet. The sound-cluster [hæm-] that is left after the isolation of the morpheme
-let does not recur in any other English word. The morpheme ham- carries a
differential and distributional meaning as it distinguishes hamlet from streamlet,
ringlet. This morpheme is qualified as unique.
Classifications of MorphemesMorphemes can be classified both semantically and structurally.
Semantically, morphemes are grouped into general categories: root morphemes
and affixational morphemes: simply speaking, roots and affixes. Structurally, they
fall into two classes: free morphemes and bound morphemes.
The Root is the most important part of a word that carries the principal
meaning. For example, accept in the words acceptable and acceptance is a root.
Similarly, -vise in the words vision and supervise is also a root. Affixes are
lexically dependent on roots and do not convey the fundamental meaning of words,
such as -able in the words speakable and eatable.
Free morphemes can be further divided into two sub-groups: lexical
morphemes and functional morphemes. The lexical morphemes include nouns,
adjectives, adverbs and verbs which carry the content of the messages we convey.
The functional morphemes include conjunctions, prepositions, articles and
pronouns. The lexical morphemes form open classes in the sense that their
members can be increased with ease. The need for new nouns, adjectives, adverbs
and verbs arises frequently in daily life, and additions to these categories occur
freely. Functional morphemes are relatively closed because additions to
conjunctions, prepositions, articles and pronouns are rare.
It is important to notice that roots are not necessarily free morphemes, and bound
morphemes, are not always affixes. The obvious examples are the roots tele- and -
vise which are bound morphemes rather than free morphemes.
Morphemic Types of Words
According to the number of morphemes words are classified into
monomorphic and polymorphic. Monomorphiс or root-words 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 root-morpheme 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, class-consciousness, light-
mindedness, pen-holder, etc.
53. Word-Formation. Various Ways of Forming Words. Various Types and
Ways of Forming Words. Word-Formation. Definition. Basic Peculiarities.
Productivity of Word-Formation Means.
Word-formation – the process of forming words by combining root and affixal morphemes according to certain patterns specific for the language (affixation, composition), or without any outward means of word formation (conversion, semantic derivation).
Word formation (словообразование)
Is a branch of science of the language, which studies the patterns on which a
language forms new lexical items (new unities, new words)It’s a process of
forming words by combining root & affixal morphemes.According to certain
patterns specific for the language or without any outward means.
(conversion)2 major groups of word formation:
1) Words formed as grammatical syntagmas, combinations of full linguistic
signs (types: compounding (словосложение), prefixation, suffixation, conversion,
and back derivation)
2) Words, which are not grammatical syntagmas, which are not made up of full
linguistic signs.
Ex.: expressive symbolism, blending, clipping, rhyme & some others.
Common for both groups is that a new word is based on synchronic relationship
between morphemes.
Different types of word formation:
COMPOUNDING
Is joining together 2 or more stems.
Types:
1) Without a connecting element
headache, heartbreak
2) With a vowel or consonant as a linking element
speedometer, craftsman
3) With a preposition or conjunction as a linking element
down-and-out (в ужасном положении, опустошенный)
son-in-law
Compounds ca be classified according to their structure:
consisting of simple stem
heartbreak
compounds where at least one stem is a derived one
football player
where one stem is clipped
Xmas
H-bag (handbag)
where one of the elements is also a compound
wastepaper basket
compound nouns, adjectives, verbs.
There are also the so-called reduplicative compounds:
Tick-tick, chow-chow
PREFIXATION
Prefixes are such particles that can be prefixed to full words. But are they not with
independent existence.Native prefixes have developed out of independent words;
there is a small number of them.
a-
be-
mid-
fore-
mis-
Prefixes of foreign origin have come into the language ready-made
Some scholars: the system of English word formation was entirely upset by the
Norman Conquest.Normans have paved the way for the non-Germanic trend the
language has taken since that time.From French English borrowed many words
with suffixes & prefixes, they became assimilated in the language & started to be
used in word building. It led to enormous cut down of the traditional word
formation out of native material. Old prefixes (some of them) disappeared forever
(too weak phonetically)
Æt-
Ed-
Nowadays English has no prefixed equivalents for some German prefixes
Er-
Ver-
Zer-
A lot of borrowed prefixes in English:
Auto-
Demi-
Mono-
Multi-
Semi-
Post-
SUFFIXATION
A suffix is a derivative final element, which is or was productive in forming new
words.It has semantic value, but doesn’t occur as an independent speech use.
The contact of English with foreign languages has led to the adoption of countless
foreign words, which started to be used in word building.→ we have many hybrid
types of derivatives.A hybrid is a word different element of which are of
etymologically different origin.
2 groups:
1) A foreign word is combined with a native affix
- full
- less
- ness
clearness, faithless, faithful
2) Foreign affixes are added to native words
- ance
- al
- ity
- able
As for the first 3 they have never become productive in English; - able was
assimilated in English very early and has became productive in many words.
Eatable
Loveable
Semi suffixes are elements, which stand midway between full words & suffixes
- like
- worthy
- way
- wise
a Godlike creature
trustworthy
clockwise
midway
6 ways of suffixing in English:
1) Derivation by native suffixes without changes in stress, vowels, consonants
Godlike
2) Derivation by borrowed suffix without changes in stress, vowels,
consonants
loveable
3) Derivation by imported suffixes, which involves the change in
Japan Japanese
4) The suffix is added to a Latin stem which closely related to an English word
science – scientist
5) The suffix is added to a Latin stem, which has no English equivalent
lingua – lingual
6) Words borrowed separately but have the same patterns of word building
candidate – candidacy
president – presidency
This is called correlative derivation.
CONVERSION
(zero derivation)
A certain stem is used for the formation of a categorically different word without a
derivative element being added.
Bag – to bag
Back – to back
Bottle – to bottle
This specific pattern is very productive in English
The most popular types are noun → verb or verb → noun
To take off – a take off
Conversion can be total or partial
Partial: the then president (тогдашний)
An adverb is used as an adjective, only in this particular context.
Total: work – to work
word-formation is the brunch of lexicology which studies the derivative structure
of existing words and the patterns on which a language builds new words.Word-
formation is the system of derivative types of words and the process of creating
new words from the material available in the language after certain structural and
semantic formulae and patterns.here are different classes according to different
principles: morphological; syntactic; lexico-semantic.There exist 4 main ways of
word building in modern English: derivation affixation; composition; conversion;
shortening abbreviation.There are also secondary ways of word-building: sound
interchange; stress interchange; sound imitation; blending; back formation;
reduplication.The conformity with structural types of words the following 2 types
of word-formation distinguished: word-derivation; word-compounding.Words
created by word derivation have 1 derivational base and 1 derivational affixation.
e.g.: overestimate.Some derived words have no derivative affixes because
derivation is achieved through conversion. e.g.: fall, n.; fall, v.Word created by
word composition have at least 2 bases. e.g.: ice-cold.Word-formation may be
studied from 2 angles: synchronically; diachronically.Diachronically it is the
chronological order of formation of 1 word from some other word that is
relevant. Synchronically a derived word is regarded as having an even more
complex structure that its correlated words regardless of the fact if it was derived
from a synchro base or a more complex base.
54. Affixation. Definition. Degree of Derivation. Prefixal and Suffixal Derivatives. Prefixation. Some Debatable Problems. Classification of Prefixes. Suffixation. Main Principles of Classification.
The process of affixation consists in coining a new word by adding an affix or
several affixes to some root morpheme. The role of the affix in this procedure
is very important and therefore it is necessary to consider certain facts about
the main types of affixes.1 Stem is part of the word consisting of root and affix.
In English words stern and root often coincide.From the etymological point of
view affixes are classified into the same two large groups as words: native and
borrowed.Affixes can also be classified into productive and non-productive
types. By productive affixes we mean the ones, which take part in deriving
new words in this particular period of language development. The best way to
identify productive affixes is to look for them among neologisms and so-called
nonce-words, i. e. words coined and used only for this particular occasion. The
latter are usually formed on the level of living speech and reflect the most
productive and progressive patterns in word-building. When a literary critic
writes about a certain book that it is an unputdownable thriller, we will seek in
vain this strange and impressive adjective in dictionaries, for it is a nonce-word
coined on the current pattern of Modern English and is evidence of the high
productivity of the adjective-forming borrowed suffix -able and the native
prefix un-.
Consider, for example, the following:
Professor Pringle was a thinnish, baldish, dispeptic-lookingish cove with an eye
like a haddock.
The adjectives thinnish and baldish bring to mind dozens of other adjectives made
with the same suffix: oldish, youngish, mannish, girlish, fattish, longish,
yellowish, etc. But dispeptic-lookingish is the author's creation aimed at a
humorous effect, and, at the same time, proving beyond doubt that the suffix -
ish is a live and active one.
The same is well illustrated by the following popular statement: "/ don't like
Sunday evenings: I feel so Mondayish". (Mondayish is certainly a nonce-word.)
One should not confuse the productivity of affixes with their frequency of
occurrence. There are quite a number of high-frequency affixes which,
nevertheless, are no longer used in word-derivation (e. g. the adjective-forming
native suffixes -ful, -ly; the adjective-forming suffixes of Latin origin -ant, -
ent, -al which are quite frequent).
Prefixation is the formation of words by means of adding a prefix to the stem. In
English it is characteristic for forming verbs. Prefixes are more independent
than suffixes. Prefixes can be classified according to the nature of words in
which they are used : prefixes used in notional words and prefixes used in
functional words. Prefixes used in notional words are proper prefixes which are
bound morphemes, e.g. un- (unhappy). Prefixes used in functional words are
semi-bound morphemes because they are met in the language as words, e.g.
over- (overhead) ( cf over the table ).
The main function of prefixes in English is to change the lexical meaning of the
same part of speech. But the recent research showed that about twenty-five
prefixes in Modern English form one part of speech from another (bebutton,
interfamily, postcollege etc).Prefixes can be classified according to different
principles :
1. Semantic classification :
a) prefixes of negative meaning, such as : in- (invaluable), non- (nonformals), un-
(unfree) etc,
b) prefixes denoting repetition or reversal actions, such as: de- (decolonize), re-
(revegetation), dis- (disconnect),
c) prefixes denoting time, space, degree relations, such as : inter- (interplanetary) ,
hyper- (hypertension), ex- (ex-student), pre- (pre-election), over-
(overdrugging) etc.
2. Origin of prefixes:
a) native (Germanic), such as: un-, over-, under- etc.
b) Romanic, such as : in-, de-, ex-, re- etc.
c) Greek, such as : sym-, hyper- etc.
Prefixation
Prefixation is the formation of words by means of adding a prefix to the stem. In
English it is characteristic for forming verbs. Prefixes are more independent than
suffixes. Prefixes can be classified according to the nature of words in which they
are used : prefixes used in notional words and prefixes used in functional words.
Prefixes used in notional words are proper prefixes which are bound morphemes,
e.g. un- (unhappy). Prefixes used in functional words are semi-bound morphemes
because they are met in the language as words, e.g. over- (overhead) ( cf over the
table ).The main function of prefixes in English is to change the lexical meaning of
the same part of speech. But the recent research showed that about twenty-five
prefixes in Modern English form one part of speech from another (bebutton,
interfamily, postcollege etc). Prefixes can be classified according to different
principles :
1. Semantic classification :
a) prefixes of negative meaning, such as : in- (invaluable), non- (nonformals),
un- (unfree) etc,
b) prefixes denoting repetition or reversal actions, such as: de- (decolonize), re-
(revegetation), dis- (disconnect),
c) prefixes denoting time, space, degree relations, such as : inter-
(interplanetary) , hyper- (hypertension), ex- (ex-student), pre- (pre-election), over-
(overdrugging) etc.
2. Origin of prefixes:
a) native (Germanic), such as: un-, over-, under- etc.
b) Romanic, such as : in-, de-, ex-, re- etc.
c) Greek, such as : sym-, hyper- etc.
When we analyze such words as : adverb, accompany where we can find the
root of the word (verb, company) we may treat ad-, ac- as prefixes though they
were never used as prefixes to form new words in English and were borrowed from
Romanic languages together with words. In such cases we can treat them as
derived words. But some scientists treat them as simple words. Another group of
words with a disputable structure are such as : contain, retain, detain and conceive,
receive, deceive where we can see that re-, de-, con- act as prefixes and -tain, -
ceive can be understood as roots. But in English these combinations of sounds
have no lexical meaning and are called pseudo-morphemes. Some scientists treat
such words as simple words, others as derived ones.
There are some prefixes which can be treated as root morphemes by some
scientists, e.g. after- in the word afternoon. American lexicographers working on
Webster dictionaries treat such words as compound words. British lexicographers
treat such words as derived ones.
55. Conversion. Definition. Synchronic Approach. Typical Semantic Relations. Basic Criteria of Semantic Derivation. Diachronic Approach of Conversion. Origin. Productivity. Traditional and Occasional Conversion. Conversion and Sound-(Stress-) Interchange.
Conversion is a characteristic feature of the English word-building system. It is
also called affixless derivation or zero-suffixation. The term «conversion» first
appeared in the book by Henry Sweet «New English Grammar» in 1891.
Conversion is treated differently by different scientists, e.g. prof. A.I. Smirntitsky
treats conversion as a morphological way of forming words when one part of
speech is formed from another part of speech by changing its paradigm, e.g. to
form the verb «to dial» from the noun «dial» we change the paradigm of the noun
(a dial,dials) for the paradigm of a regular verb (I dial, he dials, dialed, dialing). A.
Marchand in his book «The Categories and Types of Present-day English» treats
conversion as a morphological-syntactical word-building because we have not
only the change of the paradigm, but also the change of the syntactic function, e.g.
I need some good paper for my room. (The noun «paper» is an object in the
sentence). I paper my room every year. (The verb «paper» is the predicate in the
sentence).Conversion is the main way of forming verbs in Modern English. Verbs
can be formed from nouns of different semantic groups and have different
meanings because of that, e.g.
a) verbs have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting
parts of a human body e.g. to eye, to finger, to elbow, to shoulder etc. They have
instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting tools, machines,
instruments, weapons, e.g. to hammer, to machine-gun, to rifle, to nail,
b) verbs can denote an action characteristic of the living being denoted by the
noun from which they have been converted, e.g. to crowd, to wolf, to ape,
c) verbs can denote acquisition, addition or deprivation if they are formed from
nouns denoting an object, e.g. to fish, to dust, to peel, to paper,
d) verbs can denote an action performed at the place denoted by the noun from
which they have been converted, e.g. to park, to garage, to bottle, to corner, to
pocket,
e) verbs can denote an action performed at the time denoted by the noun from
which they have been converted e.g. to winter, to week-end .
Verbs can be also converted from adjectives, in such cases they denote the
change of the state, e.g. to tame (to become or make tame) , to clean, to slim etc.
Nouns can also be formed by means of conversion from verbs. Converted nouns
can denote:
a) instant of an action e.g. a jump, a move,
b) process or state e.g. sleep, walk,
c) agent of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been
converted, e.g. a help, a flirt, a scold ,
d) object or result of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has
been converted, e.g. a burn, a find, a purchase,
e) place of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been
converted, e.g. a drive, a stop, a walk.
Many nouns converted from verbs can be used only in the Singular form and
denote momentaneous actions. In such cases we have partial conversion. Such
deverbal nouns are often used with such verbs as : to have, to get, to take etc., e.g.
to have a try, to give a push, to take a swim .
CRITERIA OF SEMANTIC DERIVATIONIn cases of conversion the problem of criteria of semantic derivation arises :
which of the converted pair is primary and which is converted from it. The
problem was first analized by prof. A.I. Smirnitsky. Later on P.A. Soboleva
developed his idea and worked out the following criteria:
1. If the lexical meaning of the root morpheme and the lexico-grammatical
meaning of the stem coincide the word is primary, e.g. in cases pen - to pen, father
- to father the nouns are names of an object and a living being. Therefore in the
nouns «pen» and «father» the lexical meaning of the root and the lexico-
grammatical meaning of the stem coincide. The verbs «to pen» and « to father»
denote an action, a process therefore the lexico-grammatical meanings of the stems
do not coincide with the lexical meanings of the roots. The verbs have a complex
semantic structure and they were converted from nouns.
2. If we compare a converted pair with a synonymic word pair which was
formed by means of suffixation we can find out which of the pair is primary. This
criterion can be applied only to nouns converted from verbs, e.g. «chat» n. and
«chat» v. can be compared with «conversation» - «converse».
3. The criterion based on derivational relations is of more universal character. In
this case we must take a word-cluster of relative words to which the converted pair
belongs. If the root stem of the word-cluster has suffixes added to a noun stem the
noun is primary in the converted pair and vica versa, e.g. in the word-cluster : hand
n., hand v., handy, handful the derived words have suffixes added to a noun stem,
that is why the noun is primary and the verb is converted from it. In the word-
cluster: dance n., dance v., dancer, dancing we see that the primary word is a verb
and the noun is converted from it.
56. Word-Composition. Compounding. Structure. Meaning. Structural Meaning of the Pattern. The Meaning of Compounds. Motivation. Classification. Relations between the ICs of Compounds. Different Parts of Speech. Means of Composition. Types of Bases. Correlation between Compounds and Free Phrases. Correlation Types of Compounds. Sources of Compounds.
Word-composition (compounding)Compounding or word-composition is one of the productive means of word-
formation in Modern English. Compounds are words that are made up of two immediate constituents which are both derivative bases.
Derivative bases in compounds can have different degrees of complexity:1. both bases are simple (weekend, girlfriend).
2. one base is simple, the other is derivative (a shoemaker).3. one base is compound and the other is either simple or derivative (fancy-dress -
> fancydress-ball, маскарад; fancydress-maker).
Classification of compounds.1) According to the type of word-formation:
a. compounds proper – are words made up of two derivative bases (red-current, girlfriend)
b. derivational compounds – are words formed by affixation or conversion from a compound derivational base (blue-eyed, a breakdown)
c. pseudo-compounds - The constituent members of compound words of this subgroup are in most cases unique, carry very vague or no lexical meaning of their
own, are not found as stems of independentlyfunctioning words. They are motivated mainly through the rhythmic doubling of
fanciful sound-clusters. (loudmouth).2) Semantic
a. subordinate (подчинительные) – words where one of the derivative bases is the grammatical and semantical center of the word, as a rule – the 2 one – a head member. It expresses the general meaning of the word, and the first one specifies
it (girlfriend)b. coordinate (сочинительные) – words where both components are equally
important:- reduplicated – formed by repeating the base (fifty-fifty)
- rhyming (walkie-talkie, willy-nilly)- additive – denote an object or a person that is two things at a time (Anglo-
Saxon, an actor- manager)
Meaning in compounds.The lexical meaning of compounds is determined by the lexical meanings of its
bases and the structural meaning of its distributional pattern.The distributional pattern shows the order and arrangement of the bases. Two compounds that have the same bases but different distributional patterns will
have different meanings (a finger-ring, a ring-finger). As a rule a second base determines the part of speech meaning of the compound.
The lexical meaning of a compound doesn't coincide with the combined meanings of its bases. There is always some additional semantic element that reflects
among objects and phenomena in the outer world. Semantic relations between the compounds can be described as certain types:
- spacial (пространственный) – a garden-party, a finger-ring, a nose-ring- functional – a key-hole, a dollhouse / a babysitter, a bodyguard
- resemblance (сходство) - snow-white- producing a similar effect or acting in a typical way – a rattle-snake (гремучая
змея)If the meaning of the compound and the semantic relations between the bases are clear then the compound is motivated (red-current – красная смородина).If the meaning of the compound and the semantic relations between the bases
are not clear then the compound is non-motivated (redneck – рабочий).
Criteria of distinguishing between compounds and free-word combinations.Compounds are inseparable lexical units that are presented in dictionaries in
special entries and sub-entries. Compounds are reproduced and used in speech as lexical units, they are not formed in speech like free-word combinations. They are
only pronounced as lexical units (a red rose, a redskin).Inseparability of compounds has graphical (one word or a hyphen), phonetic
(stress), morphological (only 2 base shows grammatical category) and semantic (grammatical formes differ from the forms of the motivating words (richer – more
oil-richer) criteria.Means of composition
From the point of view of the means by which the components are joined together compound words may be classified into:
1) Words formed by merely placing one constituent after another (e.g. house-dog, pot-pie) can be: asyntactic (the order of bases runs counter to the order in which the words can be brought together under the rules of syntax of the language, e.g. red-hot, pale-blue, oil-rich) and syntactic (the order of words arranged according to the rules of syntax, e.g. mad-doctor, blacklist).
2) Compound words whose ICs are joined together with a special linking-element - linking vowels (o) and consonants (s), e.g. speedometer, tragicomic, statesman. The additive compound adjectives linked with the help of the vowel [ou] are limited to the names of nationalities and represent a specific group with a bound root for the first component, e.g. Sino-Japanese, Afro-Asian, Anglo-Saxon
57. Minor types of word formation. Clipping. Blending. Abbreviation. Sound interchange. Sound imitation. Back formation. Distinct stress.
Minor types of word-formation.
Word-formation is the system of derivative types of words and the process of
creating new words from the material available in the language after certain
structural and semantic formulas and patterns. A distinction is made between
two principal types of word-formation: word-derivation and word-composition.
The basic ways of forming words in word-derivation are affixation and
conversion. Affixation is the formation of a new word with the help of affixes,
e.g. heartless (from heart), to overdo (from to do). Conversion is the
formation of a new word b> bringing a stem of this word into a different
formal paradigm, e.g. a fall (from to fall), to slave (from a slave). The basic
form of the original and the basic form of the derived words in case of
conversion are homonymous.
Word-composition is the formation of a new word by combining two or more
stems which occur in the language as free forms, e.g. doorhandle. house-
keeper.
Ара rt from principal there are some minor types of modern word- formation. i.e.
shortening, blending, acronymy. sound interchange, sound imitation,
distinctive stress, and back-formation.
Shortening is the formation of a word by cutting off a part of the word. According
to the part of the word that is cut off (initial, middle or final) there are the
following types of shortenings: 1) initial.fend (v) < defend, phone < telephone;
2) medial, specs < spectacles, fancy < fantasy, 3) final, ad. advert <
advertisement, veg < vegetables.3)both initial and final, flu < influenza, fridge
< refrigerator.
Blending is the formation of a new word by combining pans of two words. Blends
may be of two types: 1) additive type that may be transformed into a phrase
consisting of complete stems combined by the conjunction and, e.g. smog —
sm(oke) 2) restrictive type that can be transformed into a phrase, the first
element of which serves as a modifier for the second, e.g.: telecast television
broadcast.
Acronymy - is the formation of a word from the initial letters of a word
combination. There are two basic types of acronyms: 1) acronyms which are
read as ordinary English words, e.g. UNESCO— the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization; 2) acronyms with the
alphabetic reading, ВBС — the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Sound-interchange is the formation of a word due to an alteration in the
phonemic composition of its root. 1) vowel-interchange: food — to feed. 2)
consonant-interchange: advice — to advise.
Sound imitation (onomatopoeia) is the naming of an action or a thing by a more
or less exact reproduction of the sound associated with it. cf.: cock-a-doodle-do
(English) — ку-ка-ре-ку (Russian). chatter, babble,splash, clink. whip, swing.
Back-formation is the formation of a new word by subtracting a real or supposed
suffix from the existing words. The process is based on analogy. For example,
the word to butle ‘to act or serve as a butler' is derived by subtraction of -er
from a supposedly verbal stem in the noun butler.
Distinctive stress is the formation of a word by means of the shift of the stress in
the source word, cf: increase (n) — in'crease (v), absent (adj) — ab'sent (v).
Clipping – shortening word of two or more syllables(us. nouns and adj.) without
changing its class memebership.Clipped words function as independent lex. units
with a certais phonetic shape and lex.m-ng of their own.Clipped words differ from
other words in the emotive charge and stylistic reference,they are characreristics of
colloquial speech.There do not seem to be any clear rules by means of which we
might predict where a word will be cut,though there are several types of clipping;
- words shortened at the end “pocope”(ad,lab,mike);
- shortened at the beginning “aphaeresis”(car,phone,copter);
- in which some syllables or sounds have been ommitted in the middle
“syncope”( maths,pants,specs);
- clipped both at the beginning and at the end(flu,tec=detective,fridge)
Acronyms and clippings are the main ways of w-creation in pres,day Engl.
58. Replenishment of Modern English Vocabulary. Development of Vocabulary. Structural and Semantic Peculiarities of New Vocabulary Units.
In the course of the historical development of language the word meaning is liable
to change, e.g. fond ‘foolish’, ‘foolishly credulous’ – ‘feeling strong affection to
smth’; glad ‘bright, shining’ – ‘happy and pleased about smth’.
Causes of semantic change:
a. extra-linguistic: car ‘a four-wheeled van’ (from Lat. carrus), now ‘a motor car’,
‘a railway carriage’
b. linguistic:
• ellipsis (the omission of one of the two words habitually used
togetheraccompanied by the transfer of its meaning to a remaining partner, e.g. to
starve (OE steorfan)‘to die’ > ME sterven ofhunger 'to die of hunger'.
• discrimination of synonyms, e.g. OE steorfan and dēgan (fr. Sc. to die; to starve
‘to die of hunger’, to die ‘to stop to live’ land in OE ‘a solid part of the earth’s
surface’ ; the territory of a nation’; ME country (fr. French countree) land ‘a solid
part of the earth’s surface, country ‘the territory of a nation’.
• Analogy: synonymous words acquire the like meanings, e.g. verbs of getting hold
with a hand (catch, grasp, get) develop the meaning ‘to understand’
Nature of semantic change:
• Metaphor (similarity of meaning): associating two concepts, e.g. hand ‘a human
organ’; ‘a pointer on a clock’; cold ‘having low temperature’: cold hand;
‘unemotional’ : a cold glance; cool ‘having temperature lower than the norm’;
‘unemotional’; term of positive evaluation.
• Metonymy (contiguity of meaning): tongue ‘an organ’, e.g. The doctor asked him
to show his tongue; ‘the language one speaks from birth’ , e.g. His mother tongue
was French;
Results of semantic change:
• Changes in the denotational component of meaning
• Specialization (restriction) of meaning, e.g. hound ‘the dog of any breed’ > ‘the
dog able to chase’; Foul ‘any bird’> domestic bird.
• Generalization of meaning: camp ‘the place where troops are lodged in tents; >
any temporary quarters.’
• Changes in the connotational component (accompanying the changes in
denotation):
• Pejorative development: boor ‘a villager’ > ‘a clumsy or ill-bred fellow’
• Ameliorative development: minister a servant > acivil servant of higher rank.
Semantic extension and numerical growth of the vocabulary.
Semantic extension and homonymy,cf.:
Shave 1. to cut hair from one’s face, very close to the skin, using a razor or shaver.
When he had shaved, he dressed and went down to the kitchen. …n.to reduce smth
by a small amount. We could shave prices a bit.
…(slang) to defeat, esp. by a small margin; to take advantage of.
Horse 1. An animal …N. (slang) heroine.
Words historically related can be apprehended as homonyms, e.g.:
• Flower 1. The part of the plant which is often brightly colored, grows on a
stem…
Flour 1. A white or brown powder that is made by grinding wheat… used for
making bread. Etymologically they go back to OF flur, flour > ME flour ‘flower,
the best part of anything. Words unrelated can be apprehended as meanings of the
same word:
• Ear 1.‘the ears of a person or an animal are two matching parts of their body, one
on each side of their head…’ (OE ēare,Lat auris) 4. The ears of a cereal plant such
as wheat or barley are the parts at the top of the stem, which contain the see ds or
grains….’ (OE ēar, cf Lat acus, aceris). weed ‘wild useless plant (OE wēod)
weeds ‘mourning garments worn by a widow’ (OE woed ‘garment’)
Polysemy, frequency and word structure, e.g. Heart (6), hearty (3), heartily (2),
heartless, heartiness, heartsick.
Polysemy and stylistic reference, e.g. break (35), demolish (2); face (10),
countenance (1) Polysemy, frequency and etymology. Late borrowings (regime,
bourgeoisie, genre) vs early borrowings. The difference between words in
synonymic groups: small, little, diminutive, petite, wee, tiny, minute, miniature,
microscopic. Polysemy of affixes: non- a)'negative' non-human; non-existence.
b)'pretended','pseudo',e.g. non-book;
non-event. Monosemantic words are usually terms, e.g.: hydrogen, molecule.
A polysemous word can have from five to one hundred meanings. Highly
polysemous words: go (40 meanings), get, put, take – 30 meanings.
Polysemy from a diachronic point of view (Which meaning came first?)
table 1. A flat slab of stone or wood. (OE tabule) Polysemy from a synchronic
point of view (which meaning is the basic one?) Hornby: table 1. a piece of
furniture; 2. people seated at a table: a ~ of card-players; 3. food provided at a
~ : He keeps a good ~; 4. Plateau, level land; 5. List, orderly arrangement of facts:
~ of contents; 6. (in the Bible) Flat slab of stone Collins Cobuild: table 1. A piece
of furniture; 2. A chart of facts and figures which are shown in rows 3. A
list of multiplication of numbers betwee one and and twelve: She knows her tables
already. Criteria of the comparative value of individual meanings.
a) frequency of their occurrence in speech: table 1 - 55% .
b) stylistic neutrality hand 1. The part of the body which is at the end of your
arm… -72% 7. Someone, usu. A man who does hard physical work: farm hands
…- 2,8% c) ability to explain other meanings c)psychological salience
Order 1. n. Arrangement in sequence - 77%; 2. v. to request smth to be made for
payment - 76%. Cf Cobuild 1. In order to; 2.3 Smth that you are told to do; 3.1
arrangement in sequence Systematic relationships between semantics and syntax
(Works of Beth Levin, Sue Atkins, Malka Rappaport): bake
1. Every morning they baked their own baguettes and croissants; as we baked we
talked a great deal (The indefinite object alternation; cf other creation verbs: Mrs
Babcock is embroidering a sampler). 2. Jennifer has baked a special cake for
Alexander (the benefactive alternation; cf She boiled some tea for me)
3. They baked unleavened bread from dough (The material/product alternation)
59. Ways and Means of Enriching the Vocabulary. Productive Word-Formation. Various Ways of Word-Creation. Borrowing. Semantic Extension
Ways and means of enriching the vocabulary of EnglishDevelopment of the vocabulary can be described a process of the never-ending growth.
There are two ways of enriching the vocabulary: A. Vocabulary extension — the appearance of new lexical items. New vocabulary units
appear mainly as a result of: 1) productive or patterned ways of word-formation (affixation, conversion, composition); 2) non-patterned ways of word-creation (lexicalization – transformation of a word-form into a word, e.g. arms-arm, customs (таможня)-custom); shortening - transformation of a word-group into a word or a change of the word-structure resulting in a new lexical item, e.g. RD for Road, St for Street; substantivization – the finals to the final exams, acronyms (NATO) and letter abbreviation (D.J. – disk jokey), blendings (brunch – breakfast and lunch), clipping – shortening of a word of two or more syllables
(bicycle – bike, pop (clipping plus substativization) – popular music)); 3) borrowing from other languages.
Borrowing as a means of replenishing the vocabulary of present-day English is of much lesser importance and is active mainly in the field of scientific terminology. 1) Words made up of morphemes of Latin and Greek origin (e.g. –tron: mesotron; tele-: telelecture; -in: protein). 2) True borrowings which reflect the way of life, the peculiarities of development of speech communities from which they come. (e.g. kolkhoz, sputnik). 3) Loan-translations also reflect the peculiarities of life and easily become stable units of the vocabulary (e.g. fellow-traveler, self-criticism)
B. Semantic extension — the appearance of new meanings of existing words which may result in homonyms. The semantic development of words already available in the language is the main source of the qualitative growth of the vocabulary but does not essentially change the vocabulary quantatively.
The most active ways of word creation are clippings and acronyms.
Productivity of word-formation meansAccording to Смирницкий, word-formation is the system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material available in the language. Words are
formed after certain structural and semantic patterns. The main two types of word-formation are: word-derivation and word-composition (compounding).
The degree of productivity of word-formation and factors that favor it make an important aspect of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within the two types of word-formation. The two general restrictions imposed on the derivational patterns are: 1. the part of speech in which the pattern functions; 2. the meaning which is attached to it.
Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes: highly productive, productive or semi-productive and non-productive.
Productivity of derivational patterns and affixes shouldn't be identified with frequency of occurrence in speech (e.g.-er - worker, -ful – beautiful are active suffixes because they are very frequently used. But if -er is productive, it is actively used to form new words, while -ful is non-productive since no new words are built).
Causes and ways of borrowingThe great influx of borrowings from Latin, English and Scandinavian can be accounted by a
number of historical causes. Due to the great influence of the Roman civilisation Latin was for a long time used in England as the language of learning and religion. Old Norse was the language of the conquerors who were on the same level of social and cultural development and who merged rather easily with the local population in the 9th, 10th and the first half of the 11th century. French (Norman dialect) was the language of the other conquerors who brought with them a lot of new notions of a higher social system (developed feudalism), it was the language of upper classes, of official documents and school instruction from the
middle of the 11th century to the end of the 14th century.In the study of the borrowed element in English the main emphasis is as a rule placed on
the Middle English period. Borrowings of later periods became the object of investigation only in recent years. These investigations have shown that the flow of borrowings has been steady and uninterrupted. The greatest number has come from French. They refer to various fields of social-political, scientific and cultural life. A large portion of borrowings is scientific and technical terms.
The number and character of borrowed words tell us of the relations between the peoples, the level of their culture, etc.
Some borrowings, however, cannot be explained by the direct influence of certain historical conditions, they do not come along with any new objects or ideas. Such were for instance the words air, place, brave, gay borrowed from French.
Also we can say that the closer the languages, the deeper is the influence. Thus under the influence of the Scandinavian languages, which were closely related to Old English, some classes of words were borrowed that could not have been adopted from non-related or distantly related languages (the pronouns they, their, them); a number of Scandinavian borrowings were felt as derived from native words (they were of the same root and the connection between them was easily seen), e.g. drop (AS.) — drip (Scand.), true (AS.)-tryst (Scand.); the Scandinavian influence even accelerated to a certain degree the development of the grammatical structure of English.
Borrowings enter the language in two ways: through oral speech (early periods of history, usually short and they undergo changes) and through written speech (recent times, preserve spelling and peculiarities of the sound form ).
Borrowings may be direct or indirect
60. Fundamentals of English Lexicography. Main Types of English Dictionaries. Encyclopaedic and Linguistic Dictionaries. Classification of Linguistic Dictionaries. Explanatory Dictionaries. Translation Dictionaries. Specialised Dictionaries.
The history of English lexicography. The theory and practice of compiling
dictionaries is called lexicography. The term dictionary is used to denote a
book that lists the words of a language in a certain order (usually alphabetical)
and gives their meanings, or that gives the equivalent words in a different
language. The history of compiling dictionaries for English comes as far back
as the Old English period, where we can find glosses of religious books
(interlinear translations from Latin into English). Regular bilingual dictionaries
began to appear in the 15-th century (Anglo-Latin, Anglo-French, Anglo-
German). The first unilingual dictionary explaining difficult words appeared in
1604, the author was Robert Cawdry, a schoolmaster. He compiled his
dictionary for schoolchildren. In 1721 an English scientist and writer Nathan
Bailey published the first etymological dictionary which explained the origin
of English words. It was the first scientific dictionary, it was compiled for
philologists.In 1775 an English scientist compiled a famous explanatory
dictionary. Its author was Samuel Johnson. Every word in his dictionary was
illustrated by examples from English literature, the meanings of words were
clear from the contexts in which they were used. The dictionary was a great
success and it influenced the development of lexicography in all countries. The
dictionary influenced normalization of the English vocabulary. But at the same
time it helped to preserve the English spelling in its conservative form.In 1858
one of the members of the English philological society Dr. Trench raised the
question of compiling a dictionary including all the words existing in the
language. The philological society adopted the decision to compile the
dictionary and the work started. More than a thousand people took part in
collecting examples, and 26 years later in 1884 the first volume was published.
It contained words beginning with «A» and «B». The last volume was
published in 1928 that is 70 years after the decision to compile it was adopted.
The dictionary was called NED and contained 12 volumes.
In 1933 the dictionary was republished under the title «The Oxford English
Dictionary», because the work on the dictionary was conducted in Oxford. This
dictionary contained 13 volumes. As the dictionary was very large and terribly
expensive scientists continued their work and compiled shorter editions of the
dictionary: «A Shorter Oxford Dictionary» consisting of two volumes. It had
the same number of entries, but far less examples from literature. They also
compiled «A Concise Oxford Dictionary» consisting of one volume and
including only modern words and no examples from literature.
The American lexicography began to develop much later, at the end of the 18-th
century. The most famous American English dictionary was compiled by Noah
Webster. He was an active stateman and public man and he published his first
dictionary in 1806. He went on with his work on the dictionary and in 1828 he
published a two-volume dictionary. He tried to simplify the English spelling
and transcription. He introduced the alphabetical system of transcription where
he used letters and combinations of letters instead of transcription signs. He
denoted vowels in closed syllables by the corresponding vowels, e.g. / a/, /e/, /
i/, / o/, /u/. He denoted vowels in the open syllable by the same letters, but with
a dash above them, e.g. / a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/. He denoted vowels in the position
before /r/ as the same letters with two dots above them, e.g. / a/, /o/ and by the
letter «e» with two dots above it for the combinations «er», «ir», «ur» because
they are pronounced identically. The same tendency is preserved for other
sounds : /u:/ is denoted by /oo/, /y/ is used for the sound /j/ etc.
Classification of dictionaries. Dictionaries may be classified under different heads. According to the choice of items included and the sort of information given about these items dictionaries may be divided into two big groups: linguistic and encyclopaedic dictionaries. Encyclopaedic dictionaries describe different objects, phenomena, people and give some data about them. Linguistic dictionaries describe vocabulary units, their semantic structure, their origin, their usage. Words
are usually given in the alphabetical order. Linguistic dictionaries can be further divided into different categories by different criteria.
1. According to the scope of their word-list linguistic dictionaries are divided into general and restricted.
General dictionaries represent the vocabulary as a whole with a degree of completeness depending upon the scope and the bulk of the book in question. Some general dictionaries may have very specific aims and still be considered general due to their coverage. They include frequency dictionary, a rhyming g dictionary, a Thesaurus, explanatory, translation dictionaries, etc.
Restricted dictionaries cover only a certain specific part of the vocabulary. Restricting dictionaries can be subdivided depending on whether the words are chosen according to the sphere of human activity in which they are used, the type of the units themselves or the relations existing between them. The first sub-group registers and explains technical terms for various branches of knowledge (medical, linguistic, economical terms, etc.), e.g. the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. The second sub-group deals with specific language units, i.e. with phraseological units, abbreviations, neologisms, borrowings, toponyms, dialectal words, proverbs and sayings, e.g. the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Proverbs. The third sub-group contains a formidable array of synonymic dictionaries, e.g. Merriam-Webster’s Pocket Guide to Synonyms.
2. According to the information they provide all linguistic dictionaries fall into two groups: explanatory and specialized.
Explanatory dictionaries present a wide range of data, especially with regard to the semantic aspect of the vocabulary items entered, e.g. the New Oxford Dictionary of English.
Specialized dictionaries deal with lexical units only in relation to some of their characteristics, i.e. only in relation to their etymology, frequency, pronunciation, usage, e.g. the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary.
3. According to the language of explanations, i.e. whether the information about the item entered given in the same language or in another language, all dictionaries are divided into: monolingual and bilingual.In monolingual dictionaries the words and the information about them are given in the same language, e.g. New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.Bilingual dictionaries are those that explain words by giving their equivalents in another language, e.g. the English-Russian Phraseological Dictionary (by A.V. Kunin). They may have two principal purposes: reference for translation and guidance for expression. Bilingual dictionaries must provide an adequate translation of every item in the target language and expression in the source language.
4. Dictionaries also fall into diachronic and synchronic with regard to time.Diachronic (or historical) dictionaries reflect the development of the English
vocabulary by recording the history of form and meaning for every word registered, e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary.
Synchronic (descriptive) dictionaries are concerned with the present-day meaning and usage of words, e.g. the Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English.The boundary between the mentioned types of dictionaries is, however,
not very rigid and the two principles may be blended as, for example, in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Some synchronic dictionaries are at the same time historical when they represent the state of vocabulary at some past stage of its development.
Explanatory dictionaries provide information on all aspects of the lexical units entered: graphical, phonetical, grammatical, semantic, stylistic, etymological, etc. Most of these dictionaries deal with the form, usage and meaning of lexical units in Modern English taking no account of their past development. They are synchronic in their presentation of words, for example synchronic explanatory dictionaries by Webster.
Translation dictionaries are word-books containing vocabulary items in one language and their equivalents in another, for example I English-Russian and Russian-English dictionaries.
Phraseological dictionaries in England and America contain the vast collections of idiomatic or colloquial phrases, proverbs and other, sometimes with images and with abundant illustrations. The compilers' approach is in most cases empiric so they may include not only set-phrases but free phrases and even separate words. The choice of them is arbitrary and based on intuition. Phraseological dictionaries published in this country, for example An Anglo-Russian Phraseological dictionary by A. V. Koonin, have more advantages over the reference books published abroad. The dictionary enters phrase variants and structural synonyms, distinguishes between polysemantic and homonymous phrases, shows word- and form-building abilities of phraseological units and illustrates their use by quotations.
New Words dictionaries have as their aim the adequate reflection of the continuous growth of the English language, for example A Dictionary of New English.
Dictionaries of slang contain elements from areas of substandard speech such as vulgarisms, jargonisms, taboo words, curse-words, colloquialisms, for example Bloomsbury Dictionary of Modern Slang.
Usage Dictionaries are designed to deal with usage problems such as the difference in meaning between words like salary and wages, the proper pronunciation of words like foyer, nonchalant, the plural forms of the nouns radix, index, the meaning of such foreign words as quorum, quattrocentro, and of such archaic words as yon (вон тот), yclept (именуемый, называемый) and so on. The most widely used usage dictionary is Dictionary of Modern English Usage by N.W. Fowler.
Dictionaries of word-frequency inform the user of the frequency of occurrence of lexical units in speech. Some of these dictionaries were compiled for teaching English as a foreign language, for example M. West's General Service List. The others were designed for spelling reforming, for psycholinguistic studies, etc.
A Reverse Dictionary is a list of words in which the entry words are arranged alphabetically starting with their final letters. The original aim of such dictionaries was to indicate words which form rhymes. Nowadays these
dictionaries are used for studying the frequency and productivity of certain word-forming elements and other problems of word-formation since they record all words with the same suffixes and all compounds with the same terminal components.
Pronouncing dictionaries record contemporary pronunciation. The information given in them in comparison with the phonetic information given by other dictionaries is much more detailed. They indicate variant pronunciations and the pronunciation of different grammatical forms. The world famous English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones provides the most expert guidance on British English pronunciation.
Etymological dictionaries trace present-day words to the oldest forms available, establish their primary meanings and give the parent form reconstructed by means of comparative-historical method. In case of borrowings they indicate the source of borrowing, its origin, and parallel forms in cognate languages.
Ideographic dictionaries are designed for English-speaking writers, orators or translators who need to express their ideas adequately and contain words grouped by concepts expressed. The world famous Ideographic dictionary is P.M. Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases.