методология / haritonchik / лексикология !!!!!!!!11111111 / 1
.doc|
1) L deals with the lexicon of a language, studies its development, structure and use. This study can be oriented in many ways
Sharing its object with other linguistic disciplines lexicology nevertheless concentrates on its own aspects of analysis: the structure, semantics and function of the lexicon, thus forming a special branch of linguistic science with its own aims, object of research and its subject matter. The aim of English Lexicology is the study and systematic description of the vocabulary of Present-Day English
|
2) A language system comprises several types of units the total of which form levels within the language. They are: sentences, or utterances (the communicative, syntactic level), words (the lexical level), morphemes (the morphological level), phonemes (the phonological level). The major concern of lexicology is the subsystem of lexicon. The lexicon is not restricted to words only but contains morphemes and certain types of word combinations and sentences. All the LU’s except phonemes R 2 faceted ones, characterized at least by 2 features: meaning and form. Thus the phonemes R ousted out of the vocabulary as they don’t bear any signification but fulfil only a differentiating function, signalling by the differences in sound form the existence of sense differences and never defining what the differences in meanings R. Another possible approach to delimit the lexicon is based on the communicative role and performance in communication. In the process of communication words and morphemes R used as ready-made units. They are generated into utterances in order to express our thoughts, attitudes and emotions. The majority of utterances are novel, and though they are perfectly comprehensible it is extremely unlikely that people have ever heard or seen them before, as they are produced by the speakers under the impact of an infinite number of communication situations in which a speech act takes place. At the same time we cannot ignore the existence of fixed expressions, greetings, proverbs, sayings, quotations which are sentences in structure but are reproduced often in speech as fixed, non-variable set expressions which are word-combinations in form. Thus the lexicon must include not only words & morphemes, but also ready-made word combinations & utterances.
|
3) Generative grammar is an approach to the study of language that is based on ideas that Noam Chomsky first raised in the 1950s. The basic idea is that language has a structure that is complicated but has mathematical regularity. In the generative tradition grammar embraces the whole of the language system: elements, sets of rules and conditions that allow people to speak and understand a language. Grammar in this sense consists of Phonetics, or articulation and perception of speech sounds, Phonology or patterning of speech sounds, Morphology, or word formation, Syntax, or sentence formation and Semantics or interpretation of words and sentences. The 1st version of this Grammar as construed by Chomsky consisted of the syntactic component, phonological component, semantics and the transformational component the rules of which were to map the generated structures onto the surface, i.e. phonetic level. The lexicon happens to be a list of units introduced at a definite syntactic level. 1960 saw the rise of dissident theories: with the publication of N.Chomsky’s Notes on Nominalization and R. Lees’s “The Grammar of English Nominalizations”. The first became the manifesto of the lexicalist approach to the lexicon, the other – of the transformation list approach. The main idea of the lexicalist treatment of the lexicon is that due to the idiosyncratic nature of complex lexical units (cf. worker, writer, transmission etc. which develop specific senses not predicted by the rules of their formation) or admission, permission, the phonological forms of which turn to be specific as alternating with compared to split-splitting, sit-sitting, the whole lexicon should be entered into the generative model in the form of a list. The gist of the transformationalist approach lies in the fact that a great number of lexical units are patterned according to some derivation rules, which are very much similar to syntactic rules. This allows a more economical treatment of the lexicon where complex units are generated on the basis of simple forms via rules of derivation while non-derived forms and rules are presented in the form of a list.
|
4) To solve the problem of the constituents of the lexicon we have to view it from the functional dynamic point of view. The theory that discusses these problems is known as the theory of naming (nomination, verbalization, i.e. giving a name to a class of objects, properties, processes, events). The world changes, our knowledge of the world changes makin’ it an ever-present necessity, a permanent cause for processes of naming to take place. Together with our understanding of the world our emotional attitudes towards things, events, or their properties may change thus creating a need for verbalization to express our changed emotions. Types of causes for naming: 1) social (objective); 2) cognitive (epistemological); 3) psychological (emotional); 4) linguistic causes. There exist universal ways to appease that hunger for names: Imitation (a name to an object, event, property or a class of them is given by means of imitation of some property, usually, the one which is connected with sound (to whisper, roar, bang, murmur in English or шуршать, шептать, бормотать, etc. in Russian, свiсцець, звiнець in Byelorussian). The results of imitation naming processes pose a very serious linguistic problem, namely, that of arbitrariness, or conventionality of a name. People sneeze in English and чихают in Russian producing sounds different enough: atishoo in English, апчхи in Russian. Semantic derivation (Transfer of Things which seem to have no likeness are given the same name). E.g. eye is a name for an organ of sight, and eyes of a potato, eye of a needle, the eye of the tornado, etc., an eye of a peacock (a private eye): a detective. Word derivation (creation of novel names on the basis of names already existent in the word stock, a most vivid example being word composition). A room – a living room, a bedroom, a sitting room, a bathroom, a guest-room to express various function of rooms. Here we face the same problem of arbitrariness: a living-room-гостиная, a bed-room-спальня. Borrowing. No lang. is free of borrowings which (militia (L. military service), might come in different ways, methods (directly or indirectly) and in different shapes (in the form of lexical items, shaped according to the phonetic, grammatic norms of the language or in the form of translation (vodka in E. Vodkas, malchiks, etc.), loans (Fr. tete a tete). Semantic derivation and word composition - the most productive. Types of verbalization: lexical (naming is fulfilled with the help of lexical items, ww in particular). propositional (using a word-combination or a sentence to name a situation). «Speak of the devil and he is sure to appear.» «Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.» discourse (when a text serves as a name for some usual complex situation, or a series of situations).
|
5) The application of naming techniques, which bring about the existence of complex or derived units of various types results in the creation of 2 radically different groups of lexical units:
The lexicon of any language, English being no exception, consists mainly of motivated names, which enables the speaker and the hearer find a necessary form to encode one’s thoughts and gives the key to relating accurate decoding of our speech. Names appear as motivated units. They become demotivated. However, 70% preserve their motivated character.
|
|
6) The word must B a universal of human language, because it’s depicted as a central part in the mechanism of the tongue 1 is speaking. It must B found in every act, every manifestation of language. Sassure, and earlier Humbaldt, Vygotsky & Jean Aitchison emphasized the key role of a word in the structure and function of language. George Miller: words - the fundamental units of language. This is a well-established tradition & any approach aiming at a general theory of language must accord the word a central place. Though few contemporary theories attribute 2 the word a truly central position in the language, & mo’ than 1 approach either peripheralizes it or dispenses with it altogether as a linguistic entity. The word a necessary condition of language ‘coz it plays a role as the elements of discourse, the building blocks of meaning from which sentences are constructed. Dwight Bolinger: «... the meaning of the sentence must B discussed in terms of the meaning of the component words & traffic-rule morphemes...word meaning has a bind of priority & that’s why it’s unique.» Bloomfield: the word is a minimal free form. But it is not completely satisfying. What is it in the word tat permits it to fulfill this function? Allan Garchner: The word is the unit of tongue. A word has its own make-up & somehow has an existence prior to, and even independent of that of any particular sentence. Constituents of the word must B examined. Meaning cannot B approached by competent observers in a coherent way, it cannot B treated scientifically. The fact that a word can express different senses thus raises a serious problem 4 anyone who would view it as a unit and describe the raison d’etre of the word in terms of meaning. No generally acceptable principle of the word unity has been formed. Smirnitsky has unity of all its forms and meanings. If the word is a necessary condition for language, what is the reason for this? Why R all languages wordy? Why R words - universal design features of languages? It is words in general, not scientific words, that R scientifically important (Miller, 1991) Guillaume: « A word consists of meaning & its physical sign.» It is primarily a meaning construction and its inherent unity that lie in the mental component (of go-went as 1 word) The human principle underlying language is that expression is possible only if smth has first been represented. The necessity of representing smth B4 expressing it is universal in space and time. It is this that makes the word a necessity in every act of language. Definitions of a word R plentiful. Method as a major tool of scientific analysis borderlines criteria of a word: phonological, morphological, semantic, syntactic. Thus, the boundaries of the lexicon also vary depending each time on the way we delimit words
|
7) 1) Lex. (the meaning of a word in relation to the physical world or to abstract concepts, without reference to any sentence in which the word may occur) – Gram (the meaning of a word by reference to its function within a sentence rather than to a world outside the sentence); 2) Denotative (conceptual, cognitive; how the “word” or lexeme is related to the outside world; refers to the total sum of its referents (“chair” denotes every single chair that has ever existed or ever will exist) – Connotative (what the word or expression suggests to the individual when he uses or hears it; female= soft, caring, likely to cry, cooking). If denotation is the real or proper meaning of the term, connotation refers to the feelings that mask or color this meaning. Also, connotative meaning is relatively unstable; meaning will change according to culture, historical period, and the experience of the experiencer. 3) Affective (reflected in the personal feelings of the speaker, including his attitude to the listener, or his attitude to something he is talking about. This is often conveyed through the denotative and connotative content of the words employed. Will you shut up! [Anger]) – Stylistic (social; what is communicated of the social circumstances of language use; domicile - residence - abode - home). 4) Collocative (what is communicated through association with words which tend to occur in the environment of another word. “Pretty” and “handsome” share common meaning of “good-looking” but differ because of the nouns with which they co-occur: pretty girl, flower, village; handsome man, car, vessel) – Thematic (communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer organizes the message—in terms of order and emphasis; achieved by paraphrase: “A man is waiting in the hall.” - “There is a man waiting in the hall.” Or by lexicon: “He owns a tobacco shop.” - “The tobacco shop belongs to him.”) 5) Intended (the meaning that is in the mind of the speaker or writer) - Interpreted (the meaning that is conveyed to the mind of the listener when the message is received).
|
8) MEANING Analytical (referential) approach. They seek to find the essence of meaning establishing the interdependence between words & the objects or phenomena they denote. The best known analytical model of meaning is the so-called "basic triangle". Concept (or our thought) Sound-form Word-object (referent) They are connected directly that means that if we hear a sound-form a certain idea arises in our mind & the idea brings out a certain referent that exists in the reality . But the sound-form & the referent are connected indirectly because there are no objects or phenomena in the reality that predict a certain sound-form , that need to be named by a certain sequence of sounds . The strongest point in the approach is an attempt to link the notion of meaning with the process of naming the objects , processes or phenomena of concrete reality . The analytical definitions of meaning are usually criticized on the grounds that they cannot be applied to sentences. e. g. The sentence " I like to read long novels " does not express single notion , it represents composites of notions specifying the relations between them. The referential definition of meaning can hardly be applied to semantic additions that come to the surface in the process of communication . e. g. "That's very clever " may mean different sorts of things including that it is not clever at all. It has also been stated that the referential approach fails to account for that fact that one word may denote different objects & phenomena . That is the case of polysemy . On the other hand one & the same object may be denoted by different words & that is the case of synonymy . Problems for the referential approach is (a) not all the linguistic expressions have reference; (b) nominals like a unicorn, will never have a reference; (c) no one-to-one correspondence for referring expressions: names, definite descriptions, etc.; and (d) two expressions can refer to the same individual, but with meaning differences, i.e. different senses.
|
9) MEANING - Functional (contextual) approach. Proceeding from the assumptions that the true meaning of a word is to be found by observing what a man does with it not what he says about it, the proponents of functional approach to meaning define it as the use of the word in the language. It has been suggested that the meaning of a word is revealed by substituting different contexts. e. g. The meaning of the word cat may be singled out of contexts: ____________ catch mice. I bought fish for my _____. and similar sentences. To get a better insight in to the semantics of a word it is necessary to analyze as many contexts in which it is realized as possible. The question arises – when to stop collecting different contexts & what amount of material is sufficient to make a reliable conclusion about the meaning of a word? In practice a scholar is guided by intuition which amount to the previous knowledge of the notions the given word denotes. Besides, there are contexts which are so infrequent that they can hardly be registered & quite obviously they have never been met by the speakers of the given language. Nevertheless being presented with a context a native speaker proceeds not from a list of possible contexts but from something else. The functional approach to meaning is important because it emphasizes the fact that words are seldom if ever used in isolation & thus the meaning of a word is revealed only when it is realized in a context. But on the whole the functional approach may be described as a complimentary, additional to the referential one. Minus – it tells us that the meaning is different or the same, but it doesn’t tell what the meaning is.
|
10) In the behavioral semantics proposed by Bloomfield the meaning of a linguistic form was defined as the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer. Bloomfield's theory of meaning was affected by his assumptions: his insistence on studying language in the manner of the natural sciences, beginning with formal features such as the phoneme and realizing a language as a reified object; his disavowal of linguistic performance and individual variation as a significant aspect in language science; his insistence that linguists be completely objective in their approach, withholding their intuitions in studying language "without prepossessions"; and his assumption that a successful analysis is even possible through purely objective observation. This approach doesn’t give any more or less satisfying definition of meanin’. The diversity of linguistic forms arising outta one & the same situation and serving as a verbal stimulus directed at the listener & the diversity of responses make the theory very vulnerable. Quite another view on meaning is advocated by the prototype theory as a branch of cognitive semantics (Rosch (1973). Here, meanings are identified, often pictorially, by characteristic instances of whatever class of objects, etc. a word denotes: Thus, a prototypical instance of a bird would be a sparrow rather than a penguin. In this sense, the denotation of a word is equated with its prototype. Consequently, in contrast to truth-conditional approaches, an essential claim of prototype theories is that denotations have no precise limits.
|
|
11) Значение слова целостно, оно образовано из ряда более мелких семантических компонентов (сем). Когнитивный компонент отражает объективное знание человеком окружающего его мира. Прагматический - - субъективную оценку человеком окружающего его мира, его личные переживания, интересы и отношения к наблюдаемому. Когнитивный: контенсионал (содержание понятия, стр-ра отраженных в данном понятии признаков) и экстенсионал (объем понятия, множество вещей, с кот. соотносится понятие). В контенсионале – стабильное ядро, устойчивая часть – интенсионал – изменения в нем –› возникновение новых значений. Но устойчивость интенсионала не исключает варьирования контенсионального значения, кот. в зависимости от контекста использования слова предстает в 2 разновидностях: денотативном (вмещает сверх признаков класса и другие признаки, присущие обозначаемому именем предмету и отличающие его от других предметов того же класса) и сигнификативном значаениях (общие признаки класса обозначаемых предметов).
|
12) SEMANTIC DERIVATION (SD). Causes: 1) extralinguistic (various changes in the life of speech community, changes of economic & social structure, changes of ideas, scientific concepts, way of life & other spheres of human activities as reflected in word-meanings; Historical, Psychological (taboo, euphemism (words (with neutral or positive) connotation, 2 veil painful concepts) - problematic concepts avoided in speech, e.g. Death, disease, excretion, sex, neutral designations for minorities (cripple, handicapped, black, coloured, African-American); 2) linguistic (this influence may take form of ellipsis (when in a phrase made up of 2 words one of these is omitted & its meaning is transferred 2 its partner (the Kremlin = советское правительство (the Kremlin government), meaning of 1 word is transferred 2 another ‘coz they usually occur in speech together (daily = daily newspaper); discrimination of synonyms (can B illustrated by the semantic development of a number of words: land in OE meant both solid part of earth’s surface & the territory of a nation, in ME the word country was borrowed as its synonym the meaning of land altered & the territory of a country came 2 B denoted by country); semantic analogy (if 1 of the membas of a synonymic group acquires a new meaning other membas change their meaning too(verbs synonymous with catch (grasp, get) acquired meaning “to understand”). Types: generalization (shifting of a word from a more specific meaning to a more general one: arrive (Fr rive = 'bank of a river, shore') - originally: 'arrive on shore, come to shore' then 'arrive, come to an undefined place'), specialization (narrowing; occurs when a word originally referred to a broad category, but over time narrows in scope to refer only to a once was what a subcategory: liquor originally meant any liquid), elevation (amelioration; the connotation of a word may shift toward the positive: terrible), & pejoration (degradation; the connotation of a word may shift toward the negative: silly meant happy, blessed), metaphor (an implicit comparison is made by using a word with one meaning to stand for something with a similar or analogous meaning. A word for something concrete and familiar is metaphorically extended to refer to something abstract or less familiar: bright, brilliant – as applied to intellect, the mouth of a river or a bottle, the eye of a needle or a hurricane, the foot of a hill), metonymy (a similar substitution is made, but on the basis of contiguity rather than similarity —a word with one meaning is used to stand for something connected or related to that meaning: cash (Fr casse) originally a box or chest for keeping money; now the money itself; the names of the organs of sense are often used metonymically to refer to the senses, or to the exercise of them: an ear for music, catch someone’s eye). FUNCTIONS: makes lexicon consistent & continuous, it’s an efficient source for novel meanings & leads 2 polysemy. |
13) AMBIGUITY arises when a single word or string of words is associated with more than 1 meaning. 2 different types of ambiguity can B distinguished on the basis of what is causing it: lexical ambiguity (arises when a word has multiple meanings) and structural ambiguity (2 or more different syntactic structures can B assigned 2 1 string of words. The expression «old men and women» is structurally ambiguous ‘coz it has the following 2 structural analyses: old [men and women] - [old men] and women). Ambiguous expressions that R not structurally ambiguous display lexical ambiguity. The word «polysemy» means «plurality of meanings» it exists only in the language, not in speech. A word with more than 1 meaning is called polysemantic. Different meanings of a polysemantic word may come together due to the proximity of notions which they express. E.g. the word «blanket» has the following meanings: a woolen covering used on beds, a covering for keeping a horse warm, a covering of any kind /a blanket of snow/, covering all or most cases /used attributively/, e.g. we can say «a blanket insurance policy». Homonyms R words different in meaning but identical in sound or spelling, or both. 1 of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the borderline between P. & H. (between different meanings of 1 word & the meanings of 2 homonymous words). If H. is viewed diachronically then all cased of sound convergence of 2 or mo’ words may B regarded as H. Synchronically the differentiation is based on the semantic criterion: if a connection between various meanings is apprehended, these R 2 B considered as making up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it’s H., not P. But this criterion isn’t reliable as various meanings of the same word & the meanings of 2 or mo’ words may B comprehended as synchronically unrelated; some of the meanings of lexico-grammatical h. arising from conversion R related (paper (n) – paper (v), so this criterion can’t B applied 2 a large group of homonyms. ‘times different meanings of 1 word have stable relationships which R not found between the meanings of 2 h. It can B seen in metaphoric meanings of one word (loud voice – loud colors). These semant. relationships R indicative of P. When homonymic words belong 2 different parts of speech they differ not only in their semantic structure but also in their syntactic function & distribution (paper (n, can B preceded by the article & followed by a verb) – paper (v, is never found in such distribution). In lexical homonymy there R cases when none of the criteria can B applied.
|
14) HOMONYMS R words different in meaning but identical in sound or spelling, or both. CLASSIFICATIONS. Walter Skeat classified h. according to their spelling and sound forms - three groups: perfect h. (identical in sound and spelling: «school» - «косяк рыбы» & «школа»); homographs (words with the same spelling but pronounced differently: «bow» -/bau/ - «поклон» and /bou/ - «лук»); homophones (pronounced identically but spelled differently: «night» - «ночь» and «knight» - «рыцарь»). Smirnitsky added 2 Skeat’s classification 1 mo’ criterion: grammatical meaning. Subdivided the group of perfect h. into 2 types: perfect (identical in their spelling, pronunciation and grammar form: «spring» - the season of the year, a leap, a source), & homoforms (coincide in their spelling & pronunciation but have different grammatical meaning: «reading» - Present Participle, Gerund, Verbal noun, to lobby – lobby). A more detailed classification – Arnold: classified only perfect h. & suggested 4 criteria of their classification: lexical meaning, grammatical meaning, basic forms and paradigms. The following groups: a) homonyms identical in their grammatical meanings, basic forms & paradigms & different in their lexical meanings («board» in the meanings «a council» and « a piece of wood sawn thin»); b) homonyms identical in their grammatical meanings & basic forms, different in their lexical meanings & paradigms (to lie - lied - lied, & to lie - lay – lain); c) homonyms different in their lexical meanings, grammatical meanings, paradigms, but coinciding in their basic forms («light» / «lights»/, «light» / «lighter», «lightest»/); d) homonyms different in their lexical meanings, grammatical meanings, in their basic forms and paradigms, but coinciding in one of the forms of their paradigms («a bit» and «bit» (from « to bite»). In her classification there R also patterned homonyms (have a common component in their lexical meanings). They are h. formed either by means of conversion, or by levelling of grammar inflexions. They R different in their grammar meanings, in their paradigms, identical in their basic forms («warm» - «to warm»). Here we can also have unchangeable patterned homonyms which have identical basic forms, different grammatical meanings, a common component in their lexical meanings («before» an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition). There R also homonyms among unchangeable words which R different in their lexical and grammatical meanings, identical in their basic foms, e.g. « for» - «для» and «for» - «ибо».
|
15) Patterned Polysemy Several types of polysemy occur so frequently that they should B considered part of the grammatical knowledge of the speakers of a language. First, we have count/mass alternations for nouns, which can serve several functions: Animal/meat (The lamb is running in the field. - John ate lamb for breakfast), Object/Stuff an object is made up (There is an apple on the table. - There is apple in the salad), Stuff/Kind ( There was cheese on the table. - Three cheeses were served), Stuff/Portions (The restaurant served beer, and so we ordered three beers), Plant/food alternation (Mary watered the fig in the garden. - Mary ate the fig), We have alternations between containers and contained (Mary broke the bottle. - The baby finished the bottle), Figure/Ground reversal (The window is rotting. - Mary crawled through the window), Product/producer alternation (newspaper, Honda: The newspaper fired its editor. - John spilled coffee on the newspaper), Process/result alternation (The company’s merger with Honda will begin next fall. - The merger will lead to the production of more cars), Alternations involving location: Building/institution ( university, bank), Place/people (John traveled to New York. - New York kicked the mayor out of office), Capital/government (Washington accused Havana not to do enough for the victims). Each polysemic word has its central meaning which is usually understood without the context. All the other meanings R secondary & we need context 2 understand them (yellow – color, yellow look (envy). The context individualises the meaning & brings it out (lexical c (the lexical meaning of the words of the context which surround the given word) & gram c (the meaning of the word make as force is possible only in the gr combination to make smb do smth. In another combination it’ll have allegoric meaning (to become, to make a good teacher)
|
|
16) MORPHOLOGY – the study of morphemes of a language of the way in which they R joined 2 make words. An understanding of word-formation is necessary for the study of language change, grammar. Words consist of 1 or more morphemes. The basic definition of a morpheme is 'the smallest meaningful unit of language'. Many words consist of just 1 morpheme (cat, mouse, cattle). They can’t B broken down into any smaller units of meaning. Words like catty, catfish, moused, cows on the other hand can B broken down into smaller units of meaning: cat + -ty, where cat refers 2 the animal & -ty 2 the property of being like the animal. A word might easily consist of 1 syllable & 2 morphemes (eats) or 2 syllables & 1 morpheme (cattle). Free morphemes can stand alone. Bound morphemes can only occur when joined on 2 another bound morpheme or 2 a free morpheme. Cat is a free morpheme because it occurs alone in a sentence: Please feed my cat. -ty is a bound morpheme because it can only occur when joined on to a free morpheme like cat. It is traditional 2 distinguish inflexions from derivations. Inflexions R the different forms of verbs & nouns used 2 mark grammatical meanings such as tense, number and case. (He reads a book, the verb read is inflected by adding a morpheme to show third person singular. This morpheme is realised in speech by the sound /z/, & shown in writing by -s). Derivations R new words which R formed by adding meaning through affixes 2 other words. This usually has the effect of changing the word class. (the verb read can have the suffix -able added 2 form the adjective readable, which in turn can have the prefix un- added 2 form another adjective unreadable, which, possibly, could have the suffix -ness added 2 form the noun unreadableness). Such additions R known as derivational morphemes, either prefixes or suffixes. Both inflexional & derivational morphemes R bound. Free morphemes can’t B inflexional or derivational. Where a word is formed by adding 1 free morpheme 2 another: catfish, the process is known as compounding.
|
17) Morphemic analysis is limited 2 stating the number & type of morphemes making up the word (girl(root morpheme + 1 or mo’ affixes) – ish – ness). A word formation analysis studies the structural correlation with other words, the structural patterns or rules on which words R built. This is done by means of the principle of opposition, by studying the partly similar elements, the differences between which R functionally relevant. Girl & girlish – members of morphemic opposition (similar as the root morpheme is the same, the distinctive feature is the suffix –ish). This binary opposition comprises 2 elements. A correlation is a set of binary oppositions. It’s composed of 2 subsets formed by the 1st & the 2nd elements of the opposition. Each element of the 1st set is coupled with exactly 1 element of the 2nd set & vice versa. Each 2nd element may B derived from the corresponding 1st element by a general rule valid 4 all members of the relation. Child/childish = woman/womanish – observing this opposition we may conclude that there’s in English a type of derived adj consisting of a noun stem & the suffix –ish. Any word built acc. 2 this pattern contains a semantic component common 2 the whole group (typical of, having bad qualities of). But there R cases when the results of morphemic analysis & the structural word-formation analysis do not coincide. The morphemic analysis is insufficient in showing difference between the structure of inconvenience v & impatience n, classifying both as derivatives. From the point of view of the 2nd approach they R different: inconvenience is a derivative (impatience/impatient = patience/patient), inconvenience (v)/inconvenience (n) here we deal with conversion. This approach also affords a possibility 2 distinguish between compound words formed by composition & those formed by other processes. Honeymoon (n) & honeymoon (v) R both compounds with 2 free stems, but the 1st is formed by composition (honey + moon = honeymoon (n), the 2nd – by conversion (honeymoon (n) – honeymoon (v). Here it’s not the origin of the word is established but its present correlations in the vocab & the patterns productive in the present-day English. |
18) Morpheme is the minimum meaningful language unit; it’s an association of a meaning with a sound form but unlike words morphemes R not independent & occur in speech only as constituent parts of words; they can’t B divided into smaller meaningful units. In most cases the morphemic structure of words is transparent enough & individual morphemes clearly stand out within’ the word. The segmentation of words is carried out acc. 2 the method of Immediate & Ultimate Constituents based on the binary principle – each stage of the procedure involves 2 components the word immediately breaks into. At each stage the constituents R broken into smaller meaningful elements until further division is impossible. At this point we deal with morphemes referred 2 as Ultimate Constituents. (friendliness – friendly + ness (-ness can’t B further divided =› it’s a morpheme), friend + ly). Morphemic analysis under the method of Ucs may B carried out on the basis of 2 principles: root principle (the segmentation of the word is based on the identification of the root-morpheme in a word-cluster: identification of the root-morpheme agree- in agreeable, agreement), affix principle (based on the identification of the affix within a set of words: the suffix –er leads 2 the segmentation of words singer, teacher into the derivational morpheme –er & the roots sing-, teach-)
|
19) Difficulties of segmentation of morphemes. 1) Pseudo-morphemes - sound-clusters which have a differential & a certain distributional meaning, but luck lexical meaning of their own (retain, detain – receive, deceive, re- & de- have nothing in common with the phonetically identical prefixes re- & de- (re-organize, de-organize), neither re- or de- nor –tain, -ceive posees any functional or lexical meaning, yet they R felt as having a certain meaning because re- distinguishes retain from detain.) 2) Unique root – bound morphemes, not recurrent in other word groups & possessing only differential & distributional meaning (pocket, islet can B confused with such words as lionet, locket, which have a diminutive suffix –et. But unlike root-morphemes lion, lock, recurring in other words, the sound cluster [pok-] doesn’t & has no denotational meaning. Other ex. word hamlet comparing with streamlet, leaflet or compound words cranberry, gooseberry). 3) A special kind of bound root-morphemes different from root-morphemes occurring in ordinary compounds. (graph-, tele-, scope- R characterized by quite a definite lex. meaning & peculiar stylistic reference. Analysis of such words as telegraph, telephone & autograph, phonograph may lead 2 conclusion that they contain no root-morpheme & R composed of a suffix & a prefix). 4) Semi-affixes - root-morphemes functioning as derivational morphemes (the morphemes half- & ill- in such words as ill-mannered, half-done though they seem 2 retain the status of roots, have become at the same time mo; indicative of a generalized meaning than of the individual lexical meaning proper 2 the same morpheme in independent words; they R losing their semantic identity with roots in independent words & don’t function as their lexical centres; instead they modify the root morpheme applying to it a general characteristic of incompleteness & poor quality)
|
20) According to the number of morphemes words can be classified into monomorphic or root-words (consist of only 1 root-morpheme (small, dog, make, give) & polymorphic. All polymorphic word according to the number of root-morphemes they have fall into two subgroups: derived words (composed of 1 root-morpheme & 1 or mo’ derivational morphemes: acceptable, outdo, disagreeable) & compound words (contain at least 2 root-morphemes, the number of derivational morphemes being insignificant. There can B both root- and derivational morphemes in compounds as in pen-holder, light-mindedness, or only root-morphemes as in lamp-shade, eye-ball). These structural types R not of equal importance. The clue 2 the correct understanding of their comparative value lies in a careful consideration of: 1)the importance of each type in the existing wordstock, & 2) their frequency value in actual speech. Frequency is by far the most important factor. According 2 the available word counts made in different parts of speech, we find that derived words numerically constitute the largest class of words in the existing wordstock; derived nouns comprise approximately 67% of the total number, adjectives about 86%, compound nouns make about 15% & adjectives about 4%. Root words come 2 18% in nouns; adjectives root words come 2 approximately 12%. But we cannot fail 2 perceive that root-words occupy a predominant place. In English about 60% of the total number of nouns & 62% of the total number of adjectives in current use R root-words, derived words comprise about 38% & 37% while compound words comprise an insignificant 2% in nouns and 0.2% in adjectives. Thus it is the root-words that constitute the foundation and the backbone of the vocabulary & that R of paramount importance in speech. It should also B mentioned that root words R characterized by a high degree of collocability & a complex variety of meanings in contrast with words of other structural types whose semantic structures R much poorer. Root- words also serve as parent forms for all types of derived & compound words.
|
|
21) The problem of the derivational status of affixation is very important due 2 abundance of borrowings in English, morphemic analysis of which is a rather difficult enterprise. As the result linguist give different lists of affixes, which don’t 2 coincide in number and types of affixes. Firstly, without synchronical & diachronical treatment of such morphemes as –k, -le (lark, stalk) & -y, -ness (branchy) some scientists fail 2 differentiate between living affixes (-y, -ness) & dead 1s (-le, -k). 2ndly the absence of clear-cut boundaries within the system of affixes is due 2 different views on morphemic status of such affixes as under- (underfeed, underestimate), -man (workman, seaman). This problem, called semi-affixation problem, is topical 4 many Germanic langs. Depending on whether we consider these morphemes root 1s or affixal the boundaries within the system of affixes would B different. The derivational status of a DA can B determined due 2 the distinction of synchronical & diachronical approaches, morphemic & derivational word analyses & the conditions of derivation. The 1st stage of affixal analysis is distinguishing synchronically relevant prefixes & suffixes. The 2nd 1 – definition of the class 2 which the affix belongs with further distinguishing derivational 1s. & finally meaning, structural attributes & functions, position within the system of affixes R defined. This process is connected with some difficulties which arise due 2 existence of pseudo-morphemes - sound-clusters which have a differential & a certain distributional meaning, but luck lexical meaning of their own (retain, detain – receive, deceive), unique root (bound morphemes, not recurrent in other word groups & possessing only differential & distributional meaning (pocket, islet can B confused with such words as lionet, locket, which have a diminutive suffix –et. Other ex. compound words cranberry, gooseberry), semi-affixes (root-morphemes functioning as derivational morphemes: half- & ill- (ill-mannered, half-done) have become mo’ indicative of a generalized meaning than of the individual lexical meaning proper 2 the same morpheme in independent words; they R losing their semantic identity with roots in independent words & don’t function as their lexical centres; instead they modify the root morpheme applying to it a general characteristic of incompleteness & poor quality)
|
22) Знание латинских и греческих основ позволяет вывести правила построения рядов слов типа cardial «сердечный». Будучи заимствованными в готовом виде, такие слова не воспринимаются как производные, т. к. в заимствующем языке отсутствуют единицы, с кот. их можно было бы сопоставить. В языке-источнике же эти слова – производные, образованные по нормам данного языка и демонстрирующие формальную и семантическую связь с его единицами (kardia «сердце» - kardiakos).Т. к. заимствуется только производная лексема, то в заимствующем языке теряется ее производный характер, и она становится для носителей данного языка непроизводной. Но благодаря их генетической производности сохраняется семантическая расчлененность заимствованных деривативов, кот. диктует поиск в англ. языке соотв. единиц, обозначающих те сущности, к кот. отсылаются данные заимствования. -› в англ. языке – специфическая система супплетивных форм (nose - nasal, ear – aural, city - urban). Есть случаи заимствования и обоих членов пары (economy – economic). Их многочисленность привела к усвоению англ. языком соответствующих словообразовательных моделей и созданию в системе его словообразования особой подсистемы (словообразование на неолатинской основе). Поэтому серьезная проблема словообразовательного анализа явл. выяснение того, заимствованы ли оба члена пары или же образование производного произошло уже в английском языке по сформировавшейся под влиянием многочисленных заимствований словообразовательной модели. Но при описании синхронных отношений между словами , когда важны проблемы словообразовательного анализа тех заимствований, кот. формально не производны, и установления деривационного статуса аффиксов, входящих в их состав, этот вопрос незначителен.
|
|
24) Dead Affixes have so fused with the stem of the word as 2 lose their independence completely (-d (deed, seed), -le, -l, -el (bundle, sail, hovel), -ock (hillock), -lock (wedlock), -t (gift, flight). They R irrelevant 2 present day word formation. Living affixes can B easily singled out from a word (noun-formin –ness, -dom, -hood, -age, -ance; adj-formin –en, -ous, -ive, -ful, -y). But the living 1s R different from the point of view of their productivity -› productive & non-productive 1s. Productivity of derivational affixes is characterized by their ability 2 make new words rather than their frequency of occurrence in speech. While some linguists claim that P of DA is their participation in the formation of new words in ME & their ability 2 coin a new word whenever it’s required, others emphasise that the main characteristic feature of productive affixes is their ability 2 create an unlimited number of words (= occasional words, a lungful of smoke) which all English speakers would understand without any difficulties. Degrees of productivity: highly productive affixes (-er, -ist, -ish), semi-productive (-eer, -ese, -ette, -ward: seaward), non-productive (-ard, -cy, -ive, -en: laggard, defensive). Accepting this concept of productivity we must regard such affixes as –dom, -ship, -ful, -en, -ify, -ate as non-productive. Though the P of DA is relative. Thus it’s important that conditions favouring P & the degree of P of a particular DA should B established. 4 example the suffix –ize is most productive with noun-stems, adj-stems also favour its productivity, whereas verb & adv-stems don’t. The productivity measure of a DA may B established on a statistical basis as the ratio of the number of words with the same suffix already operating in the lang. + different PA R found in different periods of the history of the language. Out of 7 verb-forming suffixes of the OE period only 1 has survived with a very low degree of P (-en: to darken). Also some affixes being non-productive in the non-specialized section of the vocab is used 2 coin scientific or technical terms (-ance: reactance; -ity: luminosity).
|
25) Сущ. (поле качества и состояния (-ness, -ity, -ship, -ation, -ment, -hood, -age, -dom, -tude); поле агентивности (-er, -ist, -ess, -ee, -ant/-ent, -eer, -ary, -ette), поле оценки (-let, -ette, -ie/-y, -ling, -kin), поле науки –ism, -ics, -y), поле рода деятельности (-ery, -ing, -ship, -y), поле локальности (-ery, -ary, -age, -arium), поле вещества (-ing, -ette, -ite), поле количества (-ful, -age, -some), поле языка ( -let, -ing, -et, -ton); прилаг. (поле отношения (-al, –ic, -ical, –ac, –ite), наличия/отсутствия качества (-y, -less, -ous, -ed, -ful, -ish, -able, -ate, -some), способности/неспособности к действию (-able, -ive, -ory, -ant/-ent, -less, -some, -ful, -ish), сходства (-y, -ish, -ly, -an, -esque, -ate, -ous, -ful), принадлежности (-an, -ary, -ine, -ish, -ese, -ous, -ern), поле со значением «сделанный из» (-en, -y, -ine); глаг. (поле каузации: -ize, -ate, -ify, -en)
|
|
|
27) Conversion is especially productive in the formation of verbs (can – to can? Phone – to phone), but not all the verbs were created this way. Some of’em arose as a result of disappearance of inflexions in the course of historical development of E due 2 which 2 words of different parts of speech coincided in pronunciation (love – to love (OE lufian). That’s why some scientists distinguish between homonymous word-pairs which appeared as a result of the loss of inflections & those formed by conversion. Conversion is applied 2 the pairs which came into existence after the inflections disappeared. Others discriminate between conversion as a derivational maens & as a type of word-building relations between words in ME. Taking in consideration this idea love – to love is also a case of conversion.
|
28) 4 terms, each has its own drawback. Conversion is in a way misleading as actually nothin is converted: the original word continues its existence alongside the new 1. As 2 zero derivation it doesn’t permit us 2 distinguish this type from sound interchange (food n – feed v) where no derivative morpheme is added either. Root formation is not always suitable as the process can involve not only root words but also words containing affixes and compounds. Functional change (syntactic approach) implies that the process in question concerns usage, not word-formation. Accepting the term functional change 1 must admit that 1 & the same word can belong 2 several parts of speech simultaneously, which contradicts the basic definition of a word as a system of forms Conversion as morphological way of word formation (Smernitsky): c. is defined as a non-affixal, & its characteristic feature is that a certain stem is used 4 the formation of a categorically different word without a derivational affix being added. C. as morphological-syntactic word building means, 4 it involves both a change of the paradigm & of the syntactic function of the word. But as the creation of a word through c. necessarily involves the formation of a purely morphological unit, syntactic factor is irrelevant 2 the processes of word-formation proper. The term conversion is mo’ widely accepted 2 denote this word-forming process. Conversion is widespread in E due 2 the absence of morphological elements serving as formal signs marking the part of speech 2 which the word belongs.
|
|
30) Поскольку происходящие при конверсии словообразовательные процессы не имеют каких-либо специальных морфологических показателей и формирование возможно как глаголов от существительных, так и сущ от глаг, установление направления отношений словообразовательной производности при конверсии, кот. вследствие своего немаркированного характера именуются семантической производностью, - далеко не праздный вопрос. Решается он с помощью ряда критериев: 1) кр. содержания (установление направления внутренней производности путем выявления семантической зависимости одного слова от другого: глаг knife описывается через сущ, в то время, как сущ knife для своего семантического анализа не требует ссылки к глаг knife). Сем. зависимость ощущается носителями языка интуитивно. 2) кр. сем. противоположности, возникающей между лексич. знач. корневой морфемы и лекс-грам знач. основы у производных слов и отсутствующей у производящих. 3) словообразовательный критерий (основан на взаимосвязи слов внутри словообразовательного гнезда и учете характера производности деривативов первой ступени в словообразовательном гнезде. Если большинство из них являются отыменными производными, то сущ, соотносящееся по конверсии с глаг в данном гнезде, непроизводно (awe – простое слово, а глаг awe – производное, что подсказывается отыменным характером др. производных aweless, awful). 4) кр. типовых сем. отношений по конверсии (маркирующий признак деривата – его значение. Производные по конверсии сущ и глаг развивают опред. типы значений: отыменные глаг – такие знач., как действовать с пом. того, что обозначается исх. сущ, помещать в место, кот. обозначено исх. сущ, лишать того, что им обознач; отглаг сущ – единичное действие, место действия, объект/результат действия. 5) кр. ограниченного употребления (слово, не столь употребительное, как соотносящаяся с ним единица другой части речи, явл. производным: глаг author – более ограниченная сфера употребл., чем сущ author, и, следовательно, образован от него). 6) наличие стилистических примет (to anger от anger).
|
|
31) Semantic relations between conversion pairs: verbs, converted from nouns (if the noun refers 2 some object of reality, the converted verb may denote: 1) action characteristic of the object (ape n – ape v – imitate in a foolish way), 2) instrumental use of the object (whip – to whip – strike with a whip), 3) acquisition or addition of the object (fish – to fish – catch fish), 4) deprivation of the object (dust – to dust – remove dust from smt); nouns, converted from verbs (the verb refers 2 an action, the noun may denote: 1) instance of the action (to jump – jump – sudden spring from the ground), 2) agent of the action (to help – help – smb who helps), 3) place of the action (to walk – walk – a place 4 walking), 4) object or result of the action (to find – find – smt found).
|
|
33) Words R used in certain lexical contexts. The aptness of a word 2 appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency. The range of the LV of words is linguistically delimited by inner structure of the E word-stock, which can B easily observed in the choice of synonyms found in different word-groups (lift & raise – raise a question, not lift). There’s a certain norm of LV of each word & any departure from this norm is felt as stylistic device. Words habitually collocated in speech tend 2 constitute cliché (the verb put forward & the noun question R habitually collocated, they constitute a habitual word-group). The LV of correlated words in different langs is not identical (thin hair – жидкий волос). The LV & polysemy of word-groups R interrelated: 1) the restrictions of LV of words may B manifested in the choice of the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups (heavy may B combined with the words food, meals in the meaning difficult 2 digest), 2) different meanings of a word may B described through the LV of the word (different meanings of the word heavy may B described thru the word-groups heavy weight, heavy snow, heavy drinker. Words R also used in gram. contexts. The minimal gram context in which the words R used when brought together 2 form word-groups – the pattern of the word-group. The aptness 2 appear in specific gram structures – grammatical valency. It may B different. Its range is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs 2 (adj can B followed by a noun, by the infinitive of a verb, etc but not by the finite form of a verb), by the inner structure of the lang (suggest & propose – both can B followed by a noun, only propose can B followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose 2 do smt), by comparing the GV of correlated words in different langs (influence (v) can B combined only with a noun, whereas Russian влиять – only with a prepositional group: влиять на к-л). Any departure from the norm would make the word-group unintelligible 2 English speakers. Individual meanings of a polysemantic word may also B described thru its GV (keen – keen sight (keen + n), keen on (keen + on + n), keen to know (keen + v). |
|
35) FREE PHRASES vs SET-PHRASES. The border line between free phrases & set phrases is not clearly defined. The so-called free phrases R but relatively free as collocability of member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical & grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close 2 set-phrases. Set-phrases R but comparatively stable & semantically inseparable. The existence of different terms 4 1 & the same phenomenon (set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents) reflect the main debatable issues of phraseology (different views concerning the nature & essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from free-phrases. The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components & grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units is idiomacity (lack of motivation). The term word-equivalent stresses not only semantic but also functional inseparability of certain word-groups, their aptness 2 function in speech. Thus phraseological units R habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that can’t B freely made up in speech but R reproduced as ready-made units, the essential features of phraseological units being stability of the lexical components & lack of motivation. Components of free-phrases vary according 2 the needs of communication, components of set-phrases R always reproduced as single unchangeable units.
|
|
36) 1) the degree of motivation of their meaning (Vinogradov): fusions (very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components; highly idiomatic & cannot B translated word 4 word: at sixes and sevens (in a mess); unities (the meaning of the whole can B guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is metaphorical or metonymical: old salt (experienced sailor); collocations (words R combined in their original meaning but their combinations R different in different languages: cash and carry (self-service shop). 2) Structural classification (Smirnitsky). Points out one-top units (compared with derived words ‘cause d. w’s have only 1 root morpheme), & two-top units (compared with compound words ‘coz c. w’s R usually of 2 root morphemes). ONE-TOP UNITS: verb + postposition type (to give up, to drop out); units of the type «to be tired» (they can remind the Passive Voice in their structure (but they have different prepositons with them, while in the Passive Voice we can have only prepositions «by» or «with»), free word-groups of the type «to be young» (to be aware of, but the adj «young» can B used as an attribute & as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal component in such units can act only as a predicative). In these units the verb is the grammar centre and the 2nd component is the semantic center); prepositional-nominal (equivalents of prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, that is why they have no grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part (on the doorstep (quite near), in the course of, in time). TWO-TOP UNITS: attributive-nominal (a month of Sundays, grey matter; noun equivalents & can B partly or perfectly idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units (phrasisms) the 1st component is idiomatic (high road), in other cases the 2nd component is idiomatic (first night); verb-nominal (to read between the lines, - the grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre - the nominal component. In some units the verb is both the grammar & the semantic center (not to know the ropes); phraseological repetitions (now or never, - can B built on antonyms (ups and downs, back and forth); often formed by means of alliteration (cakes and ale). Components in R joined by means of conjunctions. equivalents of adverbs or adjectives & have no grammar centre. They can also B partly or perfectly idiomatic (cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter (perfectly). 3) Arnold classified’em as parts of speech: noun phraseologisms (denote an object, a person, a living being: bullet train, latchkey child, Green Berets), verb (denote an action, a state, a feeling: to break the log-jam, to nose out), adjective (a quality: loose as a goose, dull as lead), adverb (with a bump, like a dream), preposition (in the course of, on the stroke of), interjection («Catch me!», «Well, I never!»).
|
37) According 2 the way PU R formed Koonin pointed out: primary ways (a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group): by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups (in cosmic technique we can point out the following phrase to link up - cтыковаться, стыковать космические корабли in its transformed meaning it means – знакомиться); by transforming the meaning of free word groups (granny farm - пансионат для престарелых), alliteration (a sad sack - несчастный случай), by means of expressiveness, characteristic 4 forming interjections (My aunt!, Hear, hear !), by distorting a word group (odds and ends from odd ends), by using archaisms (in brown study means in gloomy meditation where both components preserve their archaic meanings), by using a sentence in a different sphere of life (that cock won’t fight can B used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting), it becomes a PU when it is used in everyday life, ‘coz it is used metaphorically), when we use some unreal image (to have butterflies in the stomach - испытывать волнение), by using expressions of writers or politicians in everyday life (the winds of change (Mc Millan). Secondary ways - PU is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit: conversion (to vote with one’s feet was converted into vote with one’s feet); changing the grammar form (Make hay while the sun shines is transferred into a verbal phrase to make hay while the sun shines); analogy (Curiosity killed the cat was transferred into Care killed the cat); contrast (thin cat - «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with «fat cat»); shortening of proverbs or sayings (from the proverb «You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear» by means of clipping the middle of it the PU «to make a sow’s ear» was formed with the meaning «ошибаться»); borrowing either as translation loans (living space (German), to take the bull by the horns ( Latin) or by means of phonetic borrowings (meche blanche (French), corpse d’elite (French).
|
38) В большинстве своем фразеологизмы в англ – исконные. Во многих из них отражаются традиции, обычаи и поверья англ народа, различные реалии и факты англ истории (sit above the salt). Важнейший источник исконных фразеологизмов – профессиональная речь: armed at all points («во всеоружии» - военного происхожд). Многие исконные фр-мы – литературного происхождения (первое место по числу фр-мов, вошедших в англ, заним. произведения Шекспира. Литературные произведения, написанные на др яыках, становятся важнейшим источником заимствованных фразеологизмов. Среди них как наиболее значимые – Библия (метать бисер перед свиньями – cast pearls B4 swine), античная мифология и литература (золотая середина – the golden mean (Гораций). Литературные произведения играют существенную роль и для группы фр-мов, заимствованных из американского варианта англ (последний из Могикан – the last of Mohicans). Эквивалентность фр-мов в разных языках зачастую явл. следствием общности их происхождения и, наоборот, отсутствие эквивалентного фр-ма – специфики его источника. Наиб. степень эквивалентности присуща фр-мам заимствованным (Библия, античная мифология, греч. и римск. лит-ра). Встречаются эквивалентные фр-мы и среди исконных фр-мов, но их очень мало (смеется тот, кто смеется последним – He laughs best who laughs last, куй железо, пока горячо – Strike while the iron is hot). Среди исконных фр-мов превалируют те, у кот. имеются лишь частично эквивалентные им фр-мы в др языке или же вообще отсутствуют аналоги.
|
39) Lexicography - the theory & practice of compiling dictionaries. The history of compiling dictionaries for English comes as far back as the OE period (glosses of religious books - interlinear translations from Latin into English). Regular bilingual dictionaries began 2 appear in the 15th c. (Anglo-Latin, Anglo-French, Anglo-German). 1604 Robert Cawdry - the 1st unilingual dictionary compiled 4 schoolchildren. 1721, Nathan Bailey - the 1st etymological dictionary which explained the origin of English words (compiled 4 philologists). 1775, Samuel Johnson – an explanatory dictionary (influenced the development of lexicography in all countries). Words were illustrated by examples from English literature, the meanings were clear from the contexts in which they were used. It influenced normalization of the English vocab, helped 2 preserve the English spelling in its conservative form. 1858 the question of compiling a dictionary including all the words existing in the lang was raised. Mo’ than a thousand people took part in collecting examples, & 26 yrs later in 1884 the 1st volume was published (contained words beginning with «A» & «B»). The last volume was published 70 yrs after the decision 2 compile it was adopted. The dictionary was called NED and contained 12 volumes. In 1933 the dictionary was republished under the title «The Oxford English Dictionary», ‘coz the work on the dictionary was conducted in Oxford. 13 volumes. As the dictionary was very large and terribly expensive shorter editions were compiled: «A Shorter Oxford Dictionary» (2 volumes, the same number of entries, but far less examples). «A Concise Oxford Dictionary» was compiled (1 volume, only modern words, no examples from literature). The American L began 2 develop at the end of the 18th c. The most famous American English dictionary was compiled by Noah Webster who published his 1st dictionary in 1806. He went on with his work on the dictionary and in 1828 he published a 2-volume dictionary. Tried 2 simplify the English spelling & transcription, introduced the alphabetical system of transcription where he used letters & combinations of letters instead of transcription signs, denoted vowels in closed syllables by the corresponding vowels, (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/). He denoted vowels in the open syllable by the same letters, but with a dash above them (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/). He denoted vowels in the position before /r/ as the same letters with two dots above them & by the letter «e» with two dots above it for the combinations «er», «ir», «ur» because they R pronounced identically. The same tendency is preserved 4 other sounds: /u:/ is denoted by /oo/, /y/ is used 4 the sound /j/. |
40) English dict. may B divided into 2 types: encyclopaedic (Britannica, Americana) & linguistic (word-book, thing-book). Acc. 2 the nature of the word-list: general (lin. units in ordinary use), restricted (terminological, phraseological, dialectical). Acc 2 the lang. on which information is given: bilingual, monolingual. Acc. 2 the kind of information: explanatory, translational. Each dict. has a certain aim. Criteria: nature of the word list, information supplied, language of explanation, prospective user. Specialized: phraseological, new words dict, of slang, usage dict, of word frequency, pronouncing, etymological, ideographic
|
|
41) PROBLEMS OF LEXIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION: 1) Selection of ling. units 4 inclusion. This process is necessary 4 compiling any dictionary. Which form (spoken/written), number of items, what 2 select, what 2 leave out (technical terms, dialectisms, colloquialisms, archaisms). Depend on type of dictionary, aim, prospective user, size. 2) Arrangement of entries (alphabetical (easy 2 use), cluster type order, frequency (descending order; less space, clearer picture of relations of each unit with other units). 3) Selection & arrangement of meanings (some give meanings that R of current use, some – obsolete ones (diachronic/ synchronic dict.) 3 ways meanings R arranged: historical order (sequence of their historical development), actual order (frequency of use), logical order (logical connection). Sometimes the primary meaning comes 1st if this is important 4 a correct understanding of derived meanings. 4) Definition of meanings: encyclopaedic (determine the concept, common of nouns & terms), descriptive (give word meaning, used in majority of cases), synonyms & expressions (common 4 verbs, adj), references (see defence, common 4 derivatives, abbreviations, variant forms) 5) Illustrative examples. Diff. purposes illustrating changes in graphic/phonetic form as well as meaning, typical patterns & collocations, differences between synonyms, place words in context 2 clarify meaning. Should B made up or quoted from literature? How much space? Diachronical dicts – quotations from literature (author, source, date should B noted), synchronical dict (classical, contemporary sources, only author) |
|
43) Functional style may B defined as a system of expressive means peculiar 2 a specific sphere of communication. The broadest division of E lexis is: formal (varieties of E vocab that occur in books, magazines, we hear from public speaker, radio, TV, formal talk. Words R used with precision, generalized. Written speech, special technology, poetic diction, official vocab & learned words (archaic – thereby, hereby, thereupon, moreover, as follows), officialese, journalese (clichés: dispatch, donation, sustain, conveyance) & informal (used in every day speech; literary (colloquial (vocab used by educated ppl in ordinary conversation), old generation of writers, familiar colloquial – young generation of writers, low colloquial – illiterate popular speech (blurred bound between dialect), argot (special vocab & idioms used by a community within the society (social/age group, criminal circles), slang (ironical expressions, which serve 2 create fresh names 4 some things that R frequent topics of discussion. 2 types of slang: general (words not specific 4 any social, age, prof. Group) & special (teenage, university, military, football slangs)
|
|
45) Standard E - current & literary, substantionally uniform & recognized as acceptable whenever E is spoken & understood. Local dialects – varieties of E peculiar 2 some district. Best known southern d. – Cockney spoken by educated lower-middle class, marked by deviations in pronunciation, but few in syntax & vocab, also spoken by uneducated – different in vocab, morphol., syntax. Now dialects R chiefly preserved in rural communities in the speech of elderly ppl. They undergo rapid changes under the influence of standard E. Scottish tongue, Irish E – have a spec. ling status – literature composed in them. Am. E is not a dialect as it has a literary normalized form – standard Am. whereas by definition dialect has no literary form. Here we deal with amerikanisms – words & expressions peculiar 2 the E as spoken in the USA. AE differs from E in pronunciation, some features in grammar, but chiefly in vocab. The A. vocab developed mo’ or less independently of British, 4 mo’ than 3 centuries & was influenced by the new surroundings. Many of the elements borrowed into AE R from Indian dialects, Spanish. Soon they penetrated into British ([æ] 4 [a:], our = or, new – nu, thru – through). In the course of time lexical differences tend 2 decrease (TV, cinema, internet). There R also Australia, Canad, Ind. E, each has a literature of its own, characterised by peculiarities in spelling, phonetics, gram, vocab. The vocab of of all variants is characterised by a high percentage of borrowings from the lang of the ppl who lived there B4 the eng colonisation. The local penetrate into E as international words – borrowed from 1 lang into several others simultaneously or at short intervals. Indian: khaki, pyjamas Austr: boomerang, kangaroo, dingo
|