Ginzburg-Lexicology

I I I . [see I]; ~ with /by/ smth (with a train, with a steamer, by the six o'clock train, by aeroplane, etc.) прибывать чём-л.; ~ on smth (on horseback, on one’s bicycle, etc.) приезжать на чём-л.; ~ at some time (on time, just at the right moment, on Monday, on March 3rd, at six o'clock, before /after/ dark, before /after/ smb, etc.) прибывать когда-л.; ~ somewhere (at a small station, at a village in England, in a city, in London, in harbour, etc.) прибывать куда-л.; 2. [reach, attain]; ~ at smth (at a goal, at perfection, etc.) достигать чего-л.; ~ at smth (at a conclusion, at a correct result, at an opinion, at an understanding, etc.) приходить к чему-л.; ~ at a decision

принимать решение.

The supplementary matter in learner’s dictionaries, besides that usually found in general dictionaries, may include other reference material necessary for language learners. For instance, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary includes not only lists of irregular verbs, common abbreviations, geographical names, etc., but also common forenames listed with their pet names, numerical expressions giving help in the reading, speaking and writing of numbers and expressions which contain them, the works of William Shakespeare and even ranks in the Armed Forces of GB and US.

§ 19. Summary and Conclusions 1. The numerous linguistic dictionaries of the English language may be grouped by the fol-

lowing criteria: 1) the nature of their word-list, 2) the information they contain, 3) the language of the explanations, 4) the intended user.

2.The most important problems the lexicographer faces are: 1) the selection of items for inclusion and their arrangement, 2) the setting of the entries, 3) the selection, arrangement and definition of meanings, 4) the illustrative examples to be supplied, and 5) the supplementary material. The choice among the possible solutions depends upon the type to which the dictionary will belong, the aim the compilers pursue, the prospective user of the dictionary, the linguistic conceptions of the dictionary-maker, etc.

3.Designed for foreign learners of English, learner’s dictionaries are characterised by their strictly limited word-list, the great attention given to the functioning of lexical units in speech and their strong perspective orientation.

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

X. Methods and Procedures of

Lexicological Analysis

It is commonly recognised that acquaintance with at least some of the currently used procedures of linguistic investigation is of considerable importance both for language learners and for prospective teachers as it gives them the possibility to observe how linguists obtain answers to certain questions and is of help in the preparation of teaching material. It also helps language learners to become good observers of how language works and this is the only lasting way to become better users of language.

The process of scientific investigation may be subdivided into several stages. O b s e r v a t i o n is an early and basic, phase of all modern scientific investigation, including linguistic, and is the centre of what is called the inductive method of inquiry.

The cardinal role of all inductive procedures is that statements of fact must be based on o b s e r v a t i o n , not on unsupported authority, logical conclusions or personal preferences. Besides, linguists as a rule largely confine themselves to making factual statements, i.e. statements capable of objective verification. In other words a linguist assumes that a question cannot be answered unless there are procedures by which reliable and verifiable answers can be obtained.

The next stage after observation is c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or orderly arrangement of the data obtained through observation. For example, it is observed that in English nouns the suffixal morpheme -er is added to verbal stems (speak + -er, writ(e) + -er, etc.), noun stem’s (village + -er, London + -er, etc.), and that -er also occurs in non-derived words such as mother, father, etc. Accordingly all the nouns in -er may be classified into two types — derived and simple words and the derived words may be subdivided into two groups according to their stems. It should be pointed out that at this stage the application of different methods of analysis is common practice.1

The following stage is usually that of g e n e r a l i s a t i o n , i.e. the collection of data and their orderly arrangement must eventually lead to the formulation of< a generalisation or hypothesis, rule, or law.

In our case we can formulate a rule that derived nouns in -er may have either verbal or noun stems. The suffix -er in combination with adjectival or adverbial stems cannot form nouns (cf. (to) dig — digger but big — bigger).

Moreover, the difference in the meaning of the suffixal nouns observed by the linguist allows him to infer that if -er is added to verbal stems, the nouns thus formed denote an active doer — teacher, learner, etc., whereas when the suffix -er is combined with noun-stems the words denote residents of a place or profession (e.g. villager, Londoner).

1 See ‘Word-Structure’, §§ 7-9, pp. 96 — 102; ‘Word-Formation’, § 9, p. 119. 234

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

One of the fundamental tests of the validity of a generalisation is whether or not the generalisation is useful in making reliable p r e d i c - t i o n s . For example, proceeding from the observation and generalisation discussed above we may ‘predict’ with a considerable degree of certainty that if a new word with a suffix -er appears in modern English and the suffix is added to a verbal stem, the word is a noun denoting an active doer (cf., e.g., the new words of the type (moon-)crawler, (moon-)walker (lunar-)rouer which appeared when the Soviet moon car was launched.1 Moreover we may predict if we make use of statistical analysis that such words are more likely to be coined than the other types of nouns with the - er suffix.

Any linguistic generalisation is to be followed by the v e r i f у i n g p r o c e s s . Stated, simply, the linguist is required, as are other scientists, to seek verification of the generalisations that are the result of his inquiries. Here too, various procedures of linguistic analysis are commonly applied.

It may be inferred from the above that acquaintance with at least some of the methods of lexicological investigation, is essential for classification, generalisation and above all for the verification of the hypothesis resulting from initial observation. We may also assume that application of various methods of analysis should be an essential part of the learning process and consequently of teacher’s training.

The metho_ds and procedures briefly discussed below are as follows: 1. Contrastive analysis, 2. Statistical methods of analysis. 3. Immediate Constituents analysis, 4 Distributional analysis and co-occurrence, 5. Transformational analysis, 6. Componental analysis, 7. Method of semantic differential.2

All methods of linguistic analysis are traditionally subdivided into formalised and non-formalised procedures.

It is common knowledge that formalised methods of analysis proved to be in many cases inapplicable to natural languages and did not yield the desired results, nevertheless if not theoretical tenets at least some procedures of these methods of analysis have been used by linguists of different schools of thought and have become part of modern linguists’ equipment.

Naturally, the selection of this or that particular procedure largely depends on the goal set before the investigator.

I f , e.g., the linguist wishes to find out the derivational structure of the lexical unit he is likely to make use of the 1С analysis and/or the transformational analysis.3 If the semantic structure of two correlated words is compared, componental analysis will probably be applied.

Some of the methods of lexicological analysis are of primary importance for teachers of English and are widely used in the preparation of

1See C. Barnhart, op. cit.

2Method of contextual analysis suggested by Prof. N. N. Amosova is not discussed here because there is a monograph devoted to this procedure. See N. N. Amosova. English Contextology, L., 1968.

3See ‘Word-Structure’, § 6, p. 95; .Word-Formation’, § 30, p. 146.

235

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

teaching material, some are of lesser importance. The comparative value of individual methods for practicing teachers and also the interconnecttion of some of the procedures determined the order of their presentation. The first method discussed here is that of c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s as we consider it indispensable in teaching English as a foreign language. This is

part of any linguistic procedure. The so-called formalised methods of

terms of teaching English, but because componental analysis may be combined with distributional and/or transformational procedures, hence the necessity of introducing both procedures before we start the discussion of the componental analysis.

Contrastive linguistics as a systematic branch of linguistic science is of fairly, recent date though it is not the idea which is new but rather the systemati-

sation and the underlying principles. It is common knowledge that comparison is the basic principle in comparative philology. However the aims and methods of comparative philology differ considerably from those of contrastive linguistics. The comparativist compares languages in order to trace their philogenic relationships. The material he draws for comparison consists mainly of individual sounds, sound combinations and words, the aim is to establish f a m i l y relationship. The term used to describe this field of investigation is historical linguistics or diachronic linguistics.

Comparison is also applied in typological classification and analysis. This comparison classifies languages by types rather than origins and relationships. One of the purposes of typological comparison is to arrive at language universals — those elements and processes despite their surface diversity that all language have in common.

C o n t r a s t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s attempts to find out similarities and differences in both philogenically related and non-related languages.

It is now universally recognised that contrastive linguistics is a field of particular interest to teachers of foreign languages.1

In fact contrastive analysis grew as the result of the practical demands of language teaching methodology where it was empirically shown that the errors which are made recurrently by foreign language students can be often traced back to the differences in structure between the target language and the language of the learner. This naturally implies the necessity of a detailed comparison of the structure of a native and a target language which has been named c o n t r a s t i v e anal y s i s .

1 Contrastive analysis is becoming nowadays one of the fundamental requirements in teaching foreign languages in general. See, e. g., Proceedings of the Warsaw Session of the General Assembly of the International Association of Russian Teachers held in August 1976.

236

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

It is common knowledge that one of the major problems in the learning of the second language is the interference caused by the difference between the mother tongue of the learner and the target language. All the problems of foreign language teaching will certainly not be solved by contrastive linguistics alone. There is no doubt, however, that contrastive analysis has a part to play in evaluation of errors, in predicting typical errors and thus must be seen in connection with overall endeavours to rationalise and intensify foreign language teaching.

Linguistic scholars working in the field of applied linguistics assume that the most effective teaching materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner.1

They proceed from the assumption that the categories, elements, etc. on the semantic as well as on the syntactic and other levels are valid for both languages, i.e. are adopted from a possibly universal inventory. For example, linking verbs can be found in English, in French, in Russian, etc. Linking verbs having the meaning of ‘change’, ‘become’ are differently represented in each of the languages. In English, e.g., become, come, fall, get, grow, run, turn, wax, in German — werden, in French — devenir, in Russian — становиться.

The task set before the linguist is to find out which semantic and syntactic features characterise 1. the English set of verbs (cf. grow thin, get angry, fall ill, turn traitor, run dry, wax eloquent), 2. the French (Russian, German, etc.) set of verbs, 3. how the two sets compare. Cf., e.g., the English word-groups grow thin, get angry, fall ill and the Russian verbs

похудеть, рассердиться, заболеть.

Contrastive analysis can be carried out at three linguistic levels: phonology, grammar (morphology and syntax) and lexis (vocabulary). In what follows we shall try to give a brief survey of contrastive analysis mainly at the level of lexis.

Contrastive analysis is applied to reveal the features of sameness and difference in the lexical meaning and the semantic structure of correlated words in different languages.

It is commonly assumed by non-linguists that all languages have vocabulary systems in which the words themselves differ in sound-form but r e f e r to reality in the same way. From this assumption it follows that for every word in the mother tongue there is an exact equivalent in the foreign language. It is a belief which is reinforced by the small bilingual dictionaries where single word translations are often offered. Language learning however cannot be just a matter of learning to substitute a new set of labels for the familiar ones of the mother tongue.

Firstly, it should be borne in mind that though objective reality exists outside human beings and irrespective of the language they speak every language classifies reality in its own way by means of vocabulary units. In English, e.g., the word foot is used to denote the extremity of the leg. In Russian there is no exact equivalent for foot. The word нога denotes the whole leg including the foot.

1 See, e. g., Ch. Fries. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. University of Michigan Press, 1963, p. 9.

237

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

Classification of the real world around us provided by the vocabulary units of our mother tongue is learned and assimilated together with our first language. Because we are used to the way in which our own language structures experience we are often inclined to think of this as the only natural way of handling things whereas in fact it is highly arbitrary. One example is provided by the words watch and clock. It would seem n a t u r a l for Russian speakers to have a single word to refer to all devices that tell us what time it is; yet in English they are divided into two semantic classes depending on whether or not they are customarily portable. We also find it natural that kinship terms should reflect the difference between male and female: brother or sister, father or mother, uncle or aunt, etc. yet in English we fail to make this distinction in the case of cousin (cf. the Russian — двоюродный брат, двоюродная сестра). Contrastive analysis also brings to light what can be labelled p r o b l e m p a i r s , i.e. the words that denote two entities in one language and correspond to two different words in another language.

Compare, for example часы in Russian and clock, watch in English, художник in Russian and artist, painter in English.

Each language contains words which cannot be translated directly from this language into another. For example, favourite examples of untranslatable German words are gemütlich (something like ‘easygoing’, ‘humbly pleasant’, ‘informal’) and Schadenfreude (‘pleasure over the fact that someone else has suffered a misfortune’). Traditional examples of untranslatable English words are sophisticated and efficient.

This is not to say that the lack of word-for-word equivalents implies also the lack of what is denoted by these words. If this were true, we would have to conclude that speakers of English never indulge in Shadenfreude and that there are no sophisticated Germans or there is no efficient industry in any country outside England or the USA.

If we abandon the primitive notion of word-for-word equivalence, we can safely assume, f i r s t l y , that anything which can be said in one language can be translated more or less accurately into another, s e c - o n d l y , that correlated polysemantic words of different languages are as a rule not co-extensive. Polysemantic words in all languages may denote very different types of objects and yet all the meanings are considered by the native speakers to be obviously logical extensions of the b a s i c m e a n i n g . For example, to an Englishman it is self-evident that one should be able to use the word head to denote the following:

whereas in Russian different words have to be used: голова, изголовье,

сторона, головка, etc.

The very real danger for the Russian language learner here is that having learned first that head is the English word which denotes a part

238

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

of the body he will assume that it can be used in all the cases where the Russian word голова is used in Russian, e.g. голова сахара (‘a loaf of sugar’), городской голова (‘mayor of the city’), он парень с головой (‘he is a bright lad’), в первую голову (‘in the first place’), погрузиться во что-л. с головой (‘to throw oneself into smth.’), etc., but will never think of using the word head in connection with ‘a bed’ or ‘a coin’. T h i r d l y , the meaning of any word depends to a great extent on the place it occupies in the set of semantically related words: its synonyms, the constituents of the lexical field the word belongs to, other members of the word-family which the word enters, etc.

Thus, e.g., in the English synonymic set brave, courageous, bold, fearless, audacious, valiant, valorous, doughty, undaunted, intrepid each word differs in certain component of meaning from the others, brave usually implies resolution and self-control in meeting without flinching a situation that inspires fear, courageous stresses stout-hearted-ness and firmness of temper, bold implies either a temperamental liking for danger or a willingness to court danger or to dare the unknown, etc. Comparing the corresponding Russian synonymic set храбрый, бесстрашный, сме- лый, мужественный, отважный, etc. we see that the Russian word сме- лый, e.g., may be considered as a correlated word to either brave, valiant or valorous and also that no member of the Russian synonymic set can be viewed as an exact equivalent of any single member of the English synonymic set in isolation, although all of them denote ‘having or showing fearlessness in meeting that which is dangerous, difficult, or unknown’. Different aspects of this quality are differently distributed among the words making up the synonymic set. This absence of one-to-one correspondence can be also observed if we compare the constituents of the same lexico-semantic group in different languages. Thus, for example, let us assume that an Englishman has in his vocabulary the following words for evaluating mental aptitude: apt, bright, brilliant, clever, cunning, intelligent, shrewd, sly, dull, stupid, slow, foolish, silly. Each of these words has a definite meaning for him. Therefore each word actually represents a value judgement. As the Englishman sees a display of mental aptitude, he attaches one of these words to the situation and in so doing, he attaches a value judgement. The corresponding Russian semantic field of mental aptitude is different (cf. способный, хитрый, умный, глупый, тупой, etc.), therefore the meaning of each word is slightly different too. What Russian speakers would describe as хитрый might be described by English speakers as either cunning or sly depending on how they evaluate the given situation.

The problem under discussion may be also illustrated by the analysis of the members of correlated word-families, e.g., cf. голова, головка, etc. head, heady, etc. which are differently connected with the main word of the family in each of the two languages and have different denotational and connotational components of meaning. This can be easily observed in words containing diminutive and endearing suffixes, e.g. the English word head, grandfather, girl and others do not possess the connotative component which is part of the meaning of the Russian words головка, головуш-

ка, головёнка, дедушка, дедуля, etc.

239

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

Thus on the lexical level or to be more exact on the level of the lexical meaning contrastive analysis reveals that correlated polysemantic words are not co-extensive and shows the teacher where to expect an unusual degree of learning difficulty. This analysis may also point out the effective ways of overcoming the anticipated difficulty as it shows which of the new items will require a more extended and careful presentation and practice.

Difference in the lexical meaning (or meanings) of correlated words accounts for the difference of their collocability in different languages. This is of particular importance in developing speech habits as the mastery of collocations is much more important than the knowledge of isolated words.

Thus, e.g., the English adjective new and the Russian adjective новый when taken in isolation are felt as correlated words as in a number of cases new stands for новый, e.g. новое платье — a new dress, Новый Год — New Year. In collocation with other nouns, however, the Russian adjective cannot be used in the same meaning in which the English word new is currently used. Compare, e.g., new potatoes — молодая картош- ка, new bread — свежий хлеб, etc.

The lack of co-extension may be observed in collocations made up by words belonging to different parts of speech, e.g. compare word-groups with the verb to fill:

to fill a lamp — заправлять лам- to fill a truck — загружать ма- ny шину

to fill a pipe — набивать трубку to fill a gap — заполнять пробел

As we see the verb to fill in different collocations corresponds to a number of different verbs in Russian. Conversely one Russian word may correspond to a number of English words.

For instance compare тонкая книга — a thin book тонкая ирония — subtle irony тонкая та-

лия — slim waist

Perhaps the greatest difficulty for the Russian learners of English is the fact that not only notional words but also function words in different languages are polysemantic and not co-extensive. Quite a number of mistakes made by the Russian learners can be accounted for by the divergence in the semantic structure of function words. Compare, for example, the meanings of the Russian preposition до and its equivalents in the English language.

Contrastive analysis on the level of t h e g r a m m a t i c a l meaning reveals that correlated words in different languages may differ in the grammatical component of their meaning.

To take a simple instance Russians are liable to say the *news are good, *the money are on the table, *her hair are black, etc. as the words

240

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com

новости, деньги, волосы have the grammatical meaning of plurality in the Russian language.

Of particular interest in contrastive analysis are the compulsory grammatical categories which foreign language learners may find in the language they are studying and which are different from or nonexistent in their mother tongue. These are the meanings which the grammar of the language “forces” us to signal whether we want it or not.

One of the compulsory grammatical categories in English is the category of definiteness/indefiniteness. We know that English signals this category by means of the articles. Compare the meaning of the word man in the man is honest and man is honest.

As this category is non-existent in the Russian language it is obvious that Russian learners find it hard to use the articles properly.

Contrastive analysis brings to light the essence of what is usually described as i d i o m a t i c E n g l i s h , i d i o m a t i c R u s s i a n etc., i.e. the peculiar way in which every language combines and structures in lexical units various concepts to denote extra-linguistic reality.

The outstanding Russian linguist acad. L. V. Sčerba repeatedly stressed the fact that it is an error in principle if one supposes that the notional systems of any two languages are identical. Even in those areas where the two cultures overlap and where the material extralinguistic world is identical, the lexical units of the two languages are not different labels appended to identical concepts. In the overwhelming majority of cases the concepts denoted are differently organised by verbal means in the two languages. Different verbal organisation of concepts in different languages may be observed not only in the difference of the semantic structure of correlated words but also in the structural difference of word-groups commonly used to denote identical entities.

For example, a typical Russian word-group used to describe the way somebody performs an action, or the state in which a person finds himself, has the structure that may be represented by the formula adverb followed by a finite form of a verb (or a verb + an adverb), e.g. он крепко спит,

он быстро /медленно/ усваивает, etc. In English we can also use structurally similar word-groups and say he smokes a lot, he learnsslowly (fast), etc. The structure of idiomatic English word-groups however is different. The formula of this word-group can be represented as an adjective + deverbal noun, e.g. he is a heavy smoker, a poor learner, e.g. “the Englishman is a slow starter but there is no stronger finisher” (Galsworthy). Another English word-group used in similar cases has the structure verb to be + adjective + the infinitive, e.g. (He) is quick to realise, (He) is slow to cool down, etc. which is practically non-existent in the Russian language. Commonly used English words of the type (he is) an early-riser, a musiclover, etc. have no counterparts in the Russian language and as a rule correspond to phrases of the type (Он) рано встает, (он) очень любит му- зыку, etc.1

See ‘Word-Formation’, § 34, p. 151,

241

Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru

PDF создан испытательной версией pdfFactory Pro www.pdffactory.com