As ruakh and Barrie have pointed out, but is a coordinating conjunction. Logically, it means the same as and, unlike the other coordinating conjunction, or, which is quite different.
The difference between and and but is not logical or even semantic, but rather pragmatic.
If A is true and B is true, both conjoined constructions in the set {A and B, A but B} indicate this fact. However, A but B carries in addition a presumption to the effect that the speaker did not expect B given A, or believed that A‘s being true would normally contradict B, or was for some other reason surprised that B is true in this context.
There is no special technical term to denote this except, possibly, contrastive. It is not, however, negation, of any sort.
But is a conjunction.
But as a linking word
We use but to link items which are the same grammatical type (coordinating conjunction). But is used to connect ideas that contrast.
|
main idea |
|
contrast |
|
|
The phrase but not is common:
The room has been painted but not in the colour that I asked for.
I’d love to go for a pizza with you but not tonight.
But meaning ‘except’
But means ‘except’ when it is used after words such as all, everything/nothing, everyone/no one, everybody/nobody:
The cleaning is done now, all but the floors. They still have to be washed.
I arrived at the airport and realised that I’d brought everything but my passport!
Everyone but Anna has checked in.
Nobody but the receptionist was left in the lobby of the hotel.
We use object pronouns after but (me, you, him, us, etc.) even in subject position:
Everybody but me has paid.
No one but him would get a job like that.
In formal situations, we can use subject pronouns after but:
Everyone but she knew how the drama was going to end.
But for + reason
But for is used to introduce the reason why something didn’t happen:
But for the traffic, I would have been here an hour ago. (The traffic was very heavy – if it weren’t for the traffic, I’d have been here an hour ago.)
They would have been badly injured but for the fact that they were wearing seat belts. (They were wearing seat belts – if it weren’t for the fact that they were wearing seat belts, they would have been badly injured.)
All but meaning ‘almost completely’
I had all but finished the essay when the computer crashed and I lost it all.
His parents had all but given up hope of seeing him again.
The word but is a useful word that often ominously precedes a lot of bad news or tough criticism. But is a word that appears in many of our sentences and is one of the most commonly used words in the English language. But–and this is a big but–we might be overusing the word just a bit. It makes sense why we would overlay on but; after all, it is a short little word that can easily connect sentences together. However, there are so many other words and phrases that sadly aren’t getting to shine with but hogging all the spotlight. The word but may not like it, but it is time for but to butt out and let someone else slip into our sentences for a little while.
What does but mean, and why do we use it so much?
The word but is often used in two major ways: to express a contrast or to express an exception. The sentence Jenny is tall, but her parents are short is an example of but used to show contrast; Jenny’s height is totally different from her parents’. The sentence Everyone but Rahul was right-handed shows how but is used to express exception; Rahul is the only left-handed person, which makes him unique from everybody else.
In addition to having these two very common uses, the word but is also one of the seven coordinating conjunctions. In short, coordinating conjunctions allow us to easily connect independent sentences by simply using a comma. For example, we can combine the two shorter sentences Rabbits are fast and Turtles are slow into the larger sentence Rabbits are fast, but turtles are slow. This is a fairly easy way of combining sentences, so we often rely on but to join sentences together.
That isn’t all, though. Besides its big job as a conjunction, but can also be used as a preposition as in We tried everything but the kitchen sink or as an adverb as in There is but one road that leads to safety. With how versatile and useful the word but is, it is no wonder that we might overwork it sometimes!
✏️ Examples of but in sentences
The following examples show some of the different ways we often use but in sentences:
- I thought the book was really boring, but everyone else liked it.
- Nobody but Camila was able to last more than five minutes in the cold water.
- We could do nothing but stare in horror as the sandcastle collapsed.
- She knew of only but one way to calm the crowd: Karaoke!
Alternatives of contrast
The first major way we use but is to show contrast, contradiction, or opposition. Luckily for us, there are plenty of other words we can use to show relationships like these. In fact, we can find one among but’s coordinating conjunction friends in the word yet. Because yet is also a coordinating conjunction, we can swap it in for but without even needing to change the sentence. For example:
• We need a new car, but we can’t afford one.
• We need a new car, yet we can’t afford one.
While yet is an easy substitution for but to mean contrast, it isn’t the only option. Some other useful words and phrases that can fill in this role include:
• although, despite, however, nevertheless, nonetheless, notwithstanding, still, though, even though, on the other hand
Typically, we can use one of the above words/phrases in place of but while only making small changes to our sentences and without changing the sentence’s meaning. For example:
• The flight is on Saturday, but it might be delayed because of snow.
• The flight is on Saturday. However, it might be delayed because of snow.
Put some fun into your language by using these alternatives to fun.
Make the swap
The following pairs of sentences show how we can express a contrast by first using but and then by swapping it out for a similar word. Notice that the new sentences still express the same meaning.
• The painting looks great, but something is still missing.
• The painting looks great, yet something is still missing.
• The soldiers were heavily outnumbered, but they stood their ground anyway.
• The soldiers were heavily outnumbered. Nevertheless, they stood their ground anyway.
• Jessie and James act mean, but they are good people at heart.
• Jessie and James act mean. Still, they are good people at heart.
Alternatives of exception
The second major way that we use but is to express an exception. Again, we have a variety of different words and phrases with the same meaning that we can use to give but a break. Some of these words include:
• except, barring, save, without, excluding, minus, disregarding, omitting, aside from, not including, other than, apart from, leaving out
Most of the time, we can even substitute one of these words/phrases into a sentence without needing to change anything else. For example:
• Every student but Ryan enjoys basketball.
• Every student except Ryan enjoys basketball.
Make the swap
The following pairs of sentences show how we can state exceptions by first using but and then swapping it out for a similar word or phrase. Take note that the meaning of the sentence doesn’t change.
• All the animals but the tigers are sleeping.
• All the animals apart from the tigers are sleeping.
• I like all flavors of ice cream but mint.
• I like all flavors of ice cream other than mint.
• Every guard was loyal but one.
• Every guard was loyal, save one.
You can review all these alternatives in our word list here.
Change the sentence
It might be the case that the word but is just not the word we were looking for. In that case, we may need to take more drastic action and really change up a sentence. We might exchange but for a different word that alters the meaning of the sentence or even rewrite our sentences entirely.
Sometimes, we may want to frame our sentence in a way in which we don’t put two things in opposition or contrast, even if they are different. For example, we may just want to present two different options or state two different but equally important opinions.
Whatever our reasons, we have several different ways we could get but out of the sentence. The simplest way, which often won’t involve changing a sentence too much, is to swap out but for one of the other coordinating conjunctions. For example:
• I like dogs, but I don’t like cats. (Two opposing thoughts.)
• I like dogs, and I don’t like cats. (Two equal, different thoughts.)
• She might win big, but she might lose it all. (Two contrasting thoughts.)
• She might win big, or she might lose it all. (Two alternative outcomes.)
If we can’t use a different coordinating conjunction, we will often need to make more significant changes to our sentences in order to follow proper grammar. So, we might use a subordinating conjunction or split our clauses apart into separate sentences. For example:
• We wanted to go to the beach, but it rained all day.
• We didn’t go to the beach because it rained all day.
• Keith needed new shoes, but he couldn’t afford them.
• Keith needed new shoes. However, he couldn’t afford them.
Examples
Let’s look at different ways we can take but out of a sentence. You’ll notice that some of the sentences will change their grammar or even their meaning after but is replaced.
• Jason lives at Camp Crystal Lake, but he doesn’t work there.
• Jason lives at Camp Crystal Lake, and he doesn’t work there.
• She wants a new pony, but only if she can name it Pinkie Pie.
• She wants a new pony under the condition that she can name it Pinkie Pie.
• I didn’t practice much, but I won the game anyway.
• Despite the fact that I didn’t practice much, I won the game anyway.
Write a better sentence with Grammar Coach™
Need synonyms for overused words? The Thesaurus.com Grammar Coach™ platform makes writing papers, essays, emails, and a whole lot more a whole lot easier. This writing tool uses machine-learning technology uniquely designed to catch grammar as well as spelling errors. Its Synonym Swap will find the best nouns, adjectives, and more to help say what you really mean, guiding you toward clearer, stronger, writing.
Ответы на госы по лексикологии
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 1
1. Lexicology, its aims and significance
Lexicology is a branch of linguistics which deals with a systematic description and study of the vocabulary of the language as regards its origin, development, meaning and current use. The term is composed of 2 words of Greek origin: lexis + logos. A word about words, or the science of a word. It also concerns with morphemes, which make up words and the study of a word implies reference to variable and fixed groups because words are components of such groups. Semantic properties of such words define general rules of their joining together. The general study of the vocabulary irrespective of the specific features of a particular language is known as general lexicology. Therefore, English lexicology is called special lexicology because English lexicology represents the study into the peculiarities of the present-day English vocabulary.
Lexicology is inseparable from: phonetics, grammar, and linguostylistics b-cause phonetics also investigates vocabulary units but from the point of view of their sounds. Grammar- grammatical peculiarities and grammatical relations between words. Linguostylistics studies the nature, functioning and structure of stylistic devices and the styles of a language.
Language is a means of communication. Thus, the social essence is inherent in the language itself. The branch of linguistics which deals with relations between the language functions on the one hand and the facts of social life on the other hand is termed sociolinguistics.
Modern English lexicology investigates the problems of word structure and word formation; it also investigates the word structure of English, the classification of vocabulary units, replenishment3 of the vocabulary; the relations between different lexical layers4 of the English vocabulary and some other. Lexicology came into being to meet the demands of different branches of applied linguistic! Namely, lexicography — a science and art of compiling dictionaries. It is also important for foreign language teaching and literary criticism.
2. Referential approach to meaning
SEMASIOLOGY
There are different approaches to meaning and types of meaning
Meaning is the object of semasiological study -> semasiology is a branch of lexicology which is concerned with the study of the semantic structure of vocabulary units. The study of meaning is the basis of all linguistic investigations.
Russian linguists have also pointed to the complexity of the phenomenon of meaning (Потебня, Щерба, Смирницкий, Уфимцева и др.)
There are 3 main types of definition of meaning:
(a) Analytical or referential definition
(b) Functional or contextual approach
(c) Operational or information-oriented definition of meaning
REFERENTIAL APPROACH
Within the referential approach linguists attempt at establishing interdependence between words and objects of phenomena they denote. The idea is illustrated by the so-called basic triangle:
Concept
Sound – form_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Referent
[kæt] (concrete object)
The diagram illustrates the correlation between the sound form of a word, the concrete object it denotes and the underlying concept. The dotted line suggests that there is no immediate relation between sound form and referent + we can say that its connection is conventional (human cognition).
However the diagram fails to show what meaning really is. The concept, the referent, or the relationship between the main and the concept.
The merits: it links the notion of meaning to the process of namegiving to objects, process of phenomena. The drawbacks: it cannot be applied to sentences and additional meanings that arise in the conversation. It fails to account for polysemy and synonymy and it operates with subjective and intangible mental process as neither reference nor concept belong to linguistic data.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 2
1. Functional approach to meaning
SEMASIOLOGY
There are different approaches to meaning and types of meaning
Meaning is the object of semasiological study -> semasiology is a branch of lexicology which is concerned with the study of the semantic structure of vocabulary units. The study of meaning is the basis of all linguistic investigations.
Russian linguists have also pointed to the complexity of the phenomenon of meaning (Потебня, Щерба, Смирницкий, Уфимцева и др.)
There are 3 main types of definition of meaning:
(a) Analytical or referential definition
(b) Functional or contextual approach
(c) Operational or information-oriented definition of meaning
FUNCTIONAL (CONTEXTUAL) APPROACH
The supporters of this approach define meaning as the use of word in a language. They believe that meaning should be studied through contexts. If the distribution (position of a linguistic unit to other linguictic units) of two words is different we can conclude that heir meanings are different too (Ex. He looked at me in surprise; He’s been looking for him for a half an hour.)
However, it is hardly possible to collect all contexts for reliable conclusion. In practice a scholar is guided by his experience and intuition. On the whole, this approach may be called complimentary to the referential definition and is applied mainly in structural linguistics.
2. Classification of morphemes
A morpheme is the smallest indivisible two-facet language unit which implies an association of a certain meaning with a certain sound form. Unlike words, morphemes cannot function independently (they occur in speech only as parts of words).
Classification of Morphemes
Within the English word stock maybe distinguished morphologically segment-able and non-segment-able words (soundless, rewrite – segmentable; book, car — non-segmentable).
Morphemic segmentability may be of three types:
a) Complete segmentability is characteristic of words with transparent morphemic structure (morphemes can be easily isolated, e.g. heratless).
b) Conditional segmentability characterizes words segmentation of which into constituent morphemes is doubtful for semantic reasons (retain, detain, contain). Pseudo-morphemes
c) Defective morphemic segmentability is the property of words whose component morphemes seldom or never occur in other words. Such morphemes are called unique morphemes (cran – cranberry (клюква), let- hamlet (деревушка)).
· Semantically morphemes may be classified into: 1) root morphemes – radicals (remake, glassful, disorder — make, glass, order- are understood as the lexical centres of the words) and 2) non-root morphemes – include inflectional (carry only grammatical meaning and relevant only for the formation of word-forms) and affixational morphemes (relevant for building different types of stems).
· Structurally, morphemes fall into: free morphemes (coincides with the stem or a word-form. E.g. friend- of thenoun friendship is qualified as a free morpheme), bound morphemes (occurs only as a constituent part of a word. Affixes are bound for they always make part of a word. E.g. the suffixes –ness, -ship, -ize in the words darkness, friendship, to activize; the prefixes im-, dis-, de- in the words impolite, to disregard, to demobilize) and semi-free or semi-bound morphemes (can function both as affixes and free morphemes. E.g. well and half on the one hand coincide with the stem – to sleep well, half an hour, and on the other in the words – well-known, half-done).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 3
1. Types of meaning
The word «meaning» is not homogeneous. Its components are described as «types of meaning». The two main types of meaning are grammatical and lexical meaning.
The grammatical meaning is the component of meaning, recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of words (e.g. reads, draws, writes – 3d person, singular; books, boys – plurality; boy’s, father’s – possessive case).
The lexical meaning is the meaning proper to the linguistic unit in all its forms and distribution (e.g. boy, boys, boy’s, boys’ – grammatical meaning and case are different but in all of them we find the semantic component «male child»).
Both grammatical meaning and lexical meaning make up the word meaning and neither of them can exist without the other.
There’s also the 3d type: lexico-grammatical (part of speech) meaning. Third type of meaning is called lexico-grammatical meaning (or part-of-speech meaning). It is a common denominator of all the meanings of words belonging to a lexical-grammatical class (nouns, verbs, adjectives etc. – all nouns have common meaning oа thingness, while all verbs express process or state).
Denotational meaning – component of the lexical meaning which makes communication possible. The second component of the lexical meaning is the connotational component – the emotive charge and the stylistic value of the word.
2. Syntactic structure and pattern of word-groups
The meaning of word groups can be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words but it is not a mere additive result of all the lexical meanings of components. The meaning of the word group itself dominates the meaning of the component members (Ex. an easy rule, an easy person).
The meaning of the word group is further complicated by the pattern of arrangement of its constituents (Ex. school grammar- grammar school).
That’s why we should bear in mind the existence of lexical and structural components of meaning in word groups, since these components are independent and inseparable. The syntactic structure (formula) implies the description of the order and arrangement of member-words as parts of speech («to write novels» — verb + noun; «clever at mathematics»- adjective + preposition + noun).
As a rule, the difference in the meaning of the head word is presupposed by the difference in the pattern of the word group in which the word is used (to get + noun = to get letters / presents; to get + to + noun = to get to town). If there are different patterns, there are different meanings. BUT: identity of patterns doesn’t imply identity of meanings.
Semanticallv. English word groups are analyzed into motivated word groups and non-motivated word groups. Word groups are lexically motivated if their meanings are deducible from the meanings of components. The degree of motivation may be different.
A blind man — completely motivated
A blind print — the degree of motivation is lower
A blind alley (= the deadlock) — the degree of motivation is still less.
Non-motivated word-groups are usually described as phraseological units.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 4
1. Classification of phraseological units
The term «phraseological unit» was introduced by Soviet linguist (Виноградов) and it’s generally accepted in this country. It is aimed at avoiding ambiguity with other terms, which are generated by different approaches, are partially motivated and non-motivated.
The first classification of phraseological units was advanced for the Russian language by a famous Russian linguist Виноградов. According to the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units can be classified into three big groups: phraseological collocations (сочетания), phraseological unities (единства) and phraseological fusions (сращения).
Phraseological collocations are not motivated but contain one component used in its direct meaning, while the other is used metaphorically (e.g. to break the news, to attain success).
Phraseological unities are completely motivated as their meaning is transparent though it is transferred (e.g. to shoe one’s teeth, the last drop, to bend the knee).
Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated and stable (e.g. a mare’s nest (путаница, неразбериха; nonsense), tit-for-tat – revenge, white elephant – expensive but useless).
But this classification doesn’t take into account the structural characteristic, besides it is rather subjective.
Prof. Смирнитский treats phraseological units as word’s equivalents and groups them into: (a) one-summit units => they have one meaningful component (to be tied, to make out); (b) multi-summit units => have two or more meaningful components (black art, to fish in troubled waters).
Within each of these groups he classifies phraseological units according to the part of speech of the summit constituent. He also distinguishes proper phraseological units or units with non-figurative meaning and idioms that have transferred meaning based on metaphor (e.g. to fall in love; to wash one’s dirty linen in public).
This classification was criticized as inconsistent, because it contradicts the principle of idiomaticity advanced by the linguist himself. The inclusion of phrasal verbs into phraseology wasn’t supported by any convincing argument.
Prof. Амазова worked out the so-called contextual approach. She believes that if 3 word groups make up a variable context. Phraseological units make up the so-called fixed context and they are subdivided into phrases and idioms.
2. Procedure of morphemic analysis
Morphemic analysis deals with segmentable words. Its procedure flows to split a word into its constituent morphemes, and helps to determine their number and type. It’s called the method of immediate and ultimate constituents. This method is based on the binary principle which allows to break morphemic structure of a word into 2 components at each stage. The analysis is completed when we arrive at constituents unable of any further division. E.g. Louis Bloomfield — classical example:
ungentlemanly
I. un-(IC/UC) +gentlemanly (IC) (uncertain, unhappy)
II. gentleman (IC) + -ly (IC/UC) (happily, certainly)
III. gentle (IC) +man (IC/UC) (sportsman, seaman)
IV. gent (IC/UC) + le (IC/UC) (gentile, genteel)
The aim of the analysis is to define the number and the type of morphemes.
As we break the word we obtain at any level only 2 immediate constituents, one of which is the stem of the given word. The morphemic analysis may be based either on the identification of affixational morphemes within a set of words, or root morphemes.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 5
1. Causes, nature and results of semantic change
The set of meanings the word possesses isn’t fixed. If approached diachronically, the polysemy reflects sources and types of semantic changes. The causes of such changes may be either extra-linguistic including historical and social factors, foreign influence and the need for a new name, or linguistic, which are due to the associations that words acquire in speech (e.g. «atom» has a Greek origin, now is used in physics; «to engage» in the meaning «to invite» appeared in English due to French influence = > to engage for a dance). To unleash war – развязать войну – but originally – to unleash dogs)
The nature of semantic changes may be of two main types: 1) Similarity of meaning (metaphor). It implies a hidden comparison (bitter style – likeness of meaning or metonymy). It is the process of associating two references, one of which is part of the other, or is closely connected with it. In other words, it is nearest in type, space or function (e.g. «table» in the meaning of “food” or “furniture” [metonymy]).
The semantic change may bring about following results: 1. narrowing of meaning (e.g. “success” – was used to denote any kind of result, but today it is onle “good results”);
2. widening of meaning (e.g. “ready” in Old English was derived from “ridan” which went to “ride” – ready for a ride; but today there are lots of meanings),
3. degeneration of meaning — acquisition by a word of some derogatory or negative emotive charge (e.g. «villain» was borrowed from French “farm servant”; but today it means “a wicked person”).
4. amelioration of meaning — acquisition by a word of some positive emotive charge (e.g. «kwen» in Old English meant «a woman» but in Modern English it is «queen»).
It is obvious that 3, 4 result illustrate the change in both denotational and connotational meaning. 1, 2 change in the denotational.
The change of meaning can also be expressed through a change in the number and arrangement of word meanings without any other changes in the semantic structure of a word.
2. Productivity of word-formation means
According to Смирницкий, word-formation is the system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material available in the language. Words are formed after certain structural and semantic patterns. The main two types of word-formation are: word-derivation and word-composition (compounding).
The degree of productivity of word-formation and factors that favor it make an important aspect of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within the two types of word-formation. The two general restrictions imposed on the derivational patterns are: 1. the part of speech in which the pattern functions; 2. the meaning which is attached to it.
Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes: highly productive, productive or semi-productive and non-productive.
Productivity of derivational patterns and affixes shouldn’t be identified with frequency of occurrence in speech (e.g.-er — worker, -ful – beautiful are active suffixes because they are very frequently used. But if -er is productive, it is actively used to form new words, while -ful is non-productive since no new words are built).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 6
1. Morphological, phonetical and semantic motivation
A new meaning of a word is always motivated. Motivation — is the connection between the form of the word (i.e. its phonetic, morphological composition and structural pattern) and its meaning. Therefore a word may be motivated phonetically, morphologically and semantically.
Phonetically motivated words are not numerous. They imitate the sounds (e.g. crash, buzz, ring). Or sometimes they imitate quick movement (e.g. rain, swing).
Morphological motivation is expressed through the relationship of morphemes => all one-morpheme words aren’t motivated. The words like «matter» are called non-motivated or idiomatic while the words like «cranberry» are partially motivated because structurally they are transparent, but «cran» is devoid of lexical meaning; «berry» has its lexical meaning.
Semantic motivation is the relationship between the direct meaning of the word and other co-existing meanings or lexico-semantic variants within the semantic structure of a polysemantic word (e.g. «root»— «roots of evil» — motivated by its direct meaning, «the fruits of peace» — is the result).
Motivation is a historical category and it may fade or completely disappear in the course of years.
2. Classification of compounds
The meaning of a compound word is made up of two components: structural meaning of a compound and lexical meaning of its constituents.
Compound words can be classified according to different principles.
1. According to the relations between the ICs compound words fall into two classes: 1) coordinative compounds and 2) subordinative compounds.
In coordinative compounds the two ICs are semantically equally important. The coordinative compounds fall into three groups:
a) reduplicative compounds which are made up by the repetition of the same base, e.g. pooh-pooh (пренебрегать), fifty-fifty;
b) compounds formed by joining the phonically variated rhythmic twin forms, e.g. chit-chat, zig-zag (with the same initial consonants but different vowels); walkie-talkie (рация), clap-trap (чепуха) (with different initial consonants but the same vowels);
c) additive compounds which are built on stems of the independently functioning words of the same part of speech, e.g. actor-manager, queen-bee.
In subordinative compounds the components are neither structurally nor semantically equal in importance but are based on the domination of the head-member which is, as a rule, the second IС, e.g. stone-deaf, age-long. The second IС preconditions the part-of-speech meaning of the whole compound.
2. According to the part of speech compounds represent they fall into:
1) compound nouns, e.g. sunbeam, maidservant;
2) compound adjectives, e.g. heart-free, far-reaching;
3) compound pronouns, e.g. somebody, nothing;
4) compound adverbs, e.g. nowhere, inside;
5) compound verbs, e.g. to offset, to bypass, to mass-produce.
From the diachronic point of view many compound verbs of the present-day language are treated not as compound verbs proper but as polymorphic verbs of secondary derivation. They are termed pseudo-compounds and are represented by two groups: a) verbs formed by means of conversion from the stems of compound nouns, e.g. to spotlight (from spotlight); b) verbs formed by back-derivation from the stems of compound nouns, e.g. to babysit (from baby-sitter).
However synchronically compound verbs correspond to the definition of a compound as a word consisting of two free stems and functioning in the sentence as a separate lexical unit. Thus, it seems logical to consider such words as compounds by right of their structure.
3. According to the means of composition compound words are classified into:
1) compounds composed without connecting elements, e.g. heartache, dog-house;
2)compounds composed with the help of a vowel or a consonant as a linking element, e.g. handicraft, speedometer, statesman;
3) compounds composed with the help of linking elements represented by preposition or conjunction stems, e.g. son-in-law, pepper-and-salt.
4. According to the type of bases that form compounds the following classes can be singled out:
1) compounds proper that are formed by joining together bases built on the stems or on the word-forms with or without a linking element, e.g. door-step, street-fighting;
2) derivational compounds that are formed by joining affixes to the bases built on the word-groups or by converting the bases built on the word-groups into other parts of speech, e.g. long-legged —> (long legs) + -ed; a turnkey —> (to turn key) + conversion. Thus, derivational compounds fall into two groups: a) derivational compounds mainly formed with the help of the suffixes -ed and -er applied to bases built, as a rule, on attributive phrases, e.g. narrow-minded, doll-faced, lefthander; b) derivational compounds formed by conversion applied to bases built, as a rule, on three types of phrases — verbal-adverbial phrases (a breakdown), verbal-nominal phrases (a kill-joy) and attributive phrases (a sweet-tooth).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 7
1. Diachronic and synchronic approaches to polysemy
Diachronically, polysemy is understood as the growth and development of the semantic structure of the word. Historically we differentiate between the primary and secondary meanings of words.
The relation between these meanings isn’t only the one of order of appearance but it is also the relation of dependence = > we can say that secondary meaning is always the derived meaning (e.g. dog – 1. animal, 2. despicable person)
Synchronically it is possible to distinguish between major meaning of the word and its minor meanings. However it is often hard to grade individual meaning of the word in order of their comparative value (e.g. to get the letter — получить письмо; to get to London — прибыть в Лондон — minor).
The only more or less objective criterion in this case is the frequency of occurrence in speech (e.g. table – 1. furniture, 2. food). The semantic structure is never static and the primary meaning of a word may become synchronically one of the minor meanings and vice versa. Stylistic factors should always be taken into consideration
Polysemy of words: «yellow»- sensational (Am., sl.)
The meaning which has the highest frequency is the one representative of the whole semantic structure of the word. The Russian equivalent of «a table» which first comes to your mind and when you hear this word is ‘cтол» in the meaning «a piece of furniture». And words that correspond in their major meanings in two different languages are referred to as correlated words though their semantic structures may be different.
Primary meaning — historically first.
Major meaning — the most frequently used meaning of the word synchronically.
2. Typical semantic relations between words in conversion pairs
We can single out the following typical semantic relation in conversion pairs:
1) Verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs):
a) Actions characteristic of the subject (e.g. ape – to ape – imitate in a foolish way);
b) Instrumental use of the object (e.g. whip — to whip – strike with a whip);
c) Acquisition or addition of the objects (e.g. fish — to fish — to catch fish);
d) Deprivation of the object (e.g. dust — to dust – remove dust).
2) Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal nouns):
a) Instance of the action (e.g. to move — a move = change of position);
b) Agent of an action (e.g. to cheat — a cheat – a person who cheats);
c) Place of the action (e.g. to walk-a walk – a place for walking);
d) Object or result of the action (e.g. to find- a find – something found).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 8
1. Classification of homonyms
Homonyms are words that are identical in their sound-form or spelling but different in meaning and distribution.
1) Homonyms proper are words similar in their sound-form and graphic but different in meaning (e.g. «a ball»- a round object for playing; «a ball»- a meeting for dances).
2) Homophones are words similar in their sound-form but different in spelling and meaning (e.g. «peace» — «piece», «sight»- «site»).
3) Homographs are words which have similar spelling but different sound-form and meaning (e.g. «a row» [rau]- «a quarrel»; «a row» [rəu] — «a number of persons or things in a more or less straight line»)
There is another classification by Смирницкий. According to the type of meaning in which homonyms differ, homonyms proper can be classified into:
I. Lexical homonyms — different in lexical meaning (e.g. «ball»);
II. Lexical-grammatical homonyms which differ in lexical-grammatical meanings (e.g. «a seal» — тюлень, «to seal» — запечатывать).
III. Grammatical homonyms which differ in grammatical meaning only (e.g. «used» — Past Indefinite, «used»- Past Participle; «pupils»- the meaning of plurality, «pupil’s»- the meaning of possessive case).
All cases of homonymy may be subdivided into full and partial homonymy. If words are identical in all their forms, they are full homonyms (e.g. «ball»-«ball»). But: «a seal» — «to seal» have only two homonymous forms, hence, they are partial homonyms.
2. Classification of prefixes
Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. There are about 51 prefixes in the system of modern English word-formation.
1. According to the type they are distinguished into: a) prefixes that are correlated with independent words (un-, dis-), and b) prefixes that are correlated with functional words (e.g. out, over. under).
There are about 25 convertive prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech (E.g. embronze59).
Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically they may be divided into native and foreign origin, synchronically:
1. According to the class they preferably form: verbs (im, un), adjectives (un-, in-, il-, ir-) and nouns (non-, sub-, ex-).
2. According to the lexical-grammatical type of the base they are added to:
a). Deverbal — rewrite, overdo;
b). Denominal — unbutton, detrain, ex-president,
c). Deadjectival — uneasy, biannual.
It is of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefix un- and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, unseen etc.
3. According to their semantic structure prefixes may fall into monosemantic and polysemantic.
4. According to the generic-denotational meaning they are divided into different groups:
a). Negative prefixes: un-, dis-, non-, in-, a- (e.g. unemployment, non-scientific, incorrect, disloyal, amoral, asymmetry).
b). Reversative or privative60 prefixes: un-, de-, dis- (e.g. untie, unleash, decentralize, disconnect).
c). Pejorative prefixes: mis-, mal-, pseudo- (e.g. miscalculate, misinform, maltreat, pseudo-classicism).
d). Prefixes of time and order: fore-, pre-, post-, ex- (e.g. foretell, pre-war, post-war, ex-president).
e). Prefix of repetition re- (e.g. rebuild, rewrite).
f). Locative prefixes: super-, sub-, inter-, trans- (e.g. superstructure, subway, inter-continental, transatlantic).
5. According to their stylistic reference:
a). Neutral: un-, out-, over-, re-, under- (e.g. outnumber, unknown, unnatural, oversee, underestimate).
b). Stylistically marked: pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- (e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violet, unilateral) they are bookish.
6. According to the degree of productivity: a). highly productive, b). productive, c). non-productive.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 9
.
1. Types of linguistic contexts
The term “context” denotes the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. Contexts may be of two types: linguistic (verbal) and extra-linguistic (non-verbal).
Linguistic contexts may be subdivided into lexical and grammatical.
In lexical contexts of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with polysemantic word under consideration (e.g. adj. “heavy” is used with the words “load, table” means ‘of great weight’ ; but with natural phenomena “rain, storm, snow, wind’ it is understood as ‘abundant, striking, falling with force’; and if with “industry, artillery, arms” – ‘the larger kind of smth’). The meaning at the level of lexical contexts is sometimes described as meaning by collocation.
In grammatical meaning it is the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word (e.g. the meaning of the verb “to make” – ‘to force, to induce’ is found only in the syntactic structure “to make + prn. +verb”; another meaning ‘to become’ – “to make + adj. + noun” (to make a good teacher, wife)). Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically bound meanings.
2. Classification of suffixes
Suffixation is the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify the lexical meaning of the base and transfer words to a different part of speech. There are suffixes, however, which do not shift words from one part of speech into another; a suffix of this kind usually transfers a word into a different semantic group, e.g. a concrete noun becomes an abstract one, as in the case with child — childhood, friend- friendship etc. Suffixes may be classified:
1. According to the part of speech they form
a). Noun-suffixes: -er, -dom, -ness, -ation (e.g. teacher, freedom, brightness, justification).
b). Adjective-suffixes: -able, -less, -ful, -ic, -ous (e.g. agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous).
c). Verb-suffixes: -en, -fy, -ize (e.g. darken, satisfy, harmonize).
d). Adverb-suffixes: -ly, -ward (e.g. quickly, eastward).
2. According to the lexico-grammatical character of the base the suffixes are usually added to:
a). Deverbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base):-er, -ing, -ment, -able (speaker, reading, agreement, suitable).
b). Denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base):-less, -ish, -ful, -ist, -some (handless, childish, mouthful, troublesome).
c). Deadjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base):-en, -ly, -ish, -ness (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness).
3. According to the meaning expressed by suffixes:
a). The agent of an action: -er, -ant (e.g. baker, dancer, defendant), b). Appurtenance64: -an, -ian, -ese (e.g. Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, Chinese, Japanese).
c). Collectivity: -age, -dom, -ery (-ry) (e.g. freightage, officialdom, peasantry).
d). Diminutiveness: -ie, -let, -ling (birdie, girlie, cloudlet, booklet, darling).
4. According to the degree of productivity:
a). Highly productive
b). Productive
c). Non-productive
5. According to the stylistic value:
a). Stylistically neutral:-able, -er, -ing.
b). Stylistically marked:-oid, -i/form, -aceous, -tron (e.g. asteroid)
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 10
1. Semantic equivalence and synonymy
The traditional initial category of words that can be singled out on the basis of proximity is synonyms. The degree of proximity varies from semantic equivalence to partial semantic similarity. The classes of full synonyms are very rare and limited mainly two terms.
The greatest degree of similarity is found in those words that are identical in their denotational aspect of meaning and differ in connotational one (e.g. father- dad; imitate – monkey). Such synonyms are called stylistic synonyms. However, in the major of cases the change in the connotational aspect of meaning affects in some way the denotational aspect. These synonyms of the kind are called ideographic synonyms (e.g. clever – bright, smell – odor). Differ in their denotational aspect ideographic synonyms (kill-murder, power – strength, etc.) – these synonyms are most common.
It is obvious that synonyms cannot be completely interchangeable in all contexts. Synonyms are words different in their sound-form but similar in their denotational aspect of meaning and interchangeable at least in some contexts.
Each synonymic group comprises a dominant element. This synonymic dominant is general term which has no additional connotation (e.g. famous, celebrated, distinguished; leave, depart, quit, retire, clear out).
Syntactic dominants have high frequency of usage, vast combinability and lack connotation.
2. Derivational types of words
The basic units of the derivative structure of words are: derivational basis, derivational affixes, and derivational patterns.
The relations between words with a common root but of different derivative structure are known as derivative relations.
The derivational base is the part of the word which establishes connections with the lexical unit that motivates the derivative and defines its lexical meaning. It’s to this part of the word (derivational base) that the rule of word formation is applied. Structurally, derivational bases fall into 3 classes: 1. Bases that coincide with morphological stems (beautiful, beautifully); 2. Bases that coincide with word-forms (unknown- limited mainly to verbs); 3. Bases that coincide with word groups. They are mainly active in the class of adjectives and nouns (blue-eyed, easy-going).
According to their derivational structure words fall into: simplexes (simple, non-derived words) and complexes (derivatives). Complexes are grouped into: derivatives and compounds. Derivatives fall into: affixational (suffixal and affixal) types and conversions. Complexes constitute the largest class of words. Both morphemic and derivational structure of words is subject to various changes in the course of time.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 11
1. Semantic contrasts and antonymy
The semantic relations of opposition are the basis for grouping antonyms. The term «antonym» is of Greek origin and means “opposite name”. It is used to describe words different in some form and characterised by different types of semantic contrast of denotational meaning and interchangeability at least in some contexts.
Structurally, all antonyms can be subdivided into absolute (having different roots) and derivational (of the same root), (e.g. «right»- «wrong»; «to arrive»- «to leave» are absolute antonyms; but «to fit» — «to unfit» are derivational).
Semantically, all antonyms can be divided in at least 3 groups:
a) Contradictories. They express contradictory notions which are mutually opposed and deny each other. Their relations can be described by the formula «A versus NOT A»: alive vs. dead (not alive); patient vs. impatient (not patient). Contradictories may be polar or relative (to hate- to love [not to love doesn’t mean «hate»]).
b) Contraries are also mutually opposed, but they admit some possibility between themselves because they are gradable (e.g. cold – hot, warm; hot – cold, cool). This group also includes words opposed by the presence of such components of meaning as SEX and AGE (man -woman; man — boy etc.).
c) Incompatibles. The relations between them are not of contradiction but of exclusion. They exclude possibilities of other words from the same semantic set (e.g. «red»- doesn’t mean that it is opposed to white it means all other colors; the same is true to such words as «morning», «day», «night» etc.).
There is another type of opposition which is formed with reversive antonyms. They imply the denotation of the same referent, but viewed from different points (e.g. to buy – to sell, to give – to receive, to cause – to suffer)
A polysemantic word may have as many antonyms as it has meanings. But not all words and meanings have antonyms!!! (e.g. «a table»- it’s difficult to find an antonym, «a book»).
Relations of antonymy are limited to a certain context + they serve to differentiate meanings of a polysemantic word (e.g. slice of bread — «thick» vs. «thin» BUT: person — «fat» vs. «thin»).
2. Types of word segmentability
Within the English word stock maybe distinguished morphologically segment-able and non-segmentable words (soundless, rewrite — segmentable; book, car — non-segmentable).
Morphemic segmentability may be of three types: 1. complete, 2. conditional, 3. defective.
A). Complete segmentability is characteristic of words with transparent morphemic structure. Their morphemes can be easily isolated which are called morphemes proper or full morphemes (e.g. senseless, endless, useless). The transparent morphemic structure is conditioned by the fact that their constituent morphemes recur with the same meaning in a number of other words.
B). Conditional segmentability characterizes words segmentation of which into constituent morphemes is doubtful for semantic reasons (e.g. retain, detain, contain). The sound clusters «re-, de-, con-» seem to be easily isolated since they recur in other words but they have nothing in common with the morphemes «re, de-, con-» which are found in the words «rewrite», «decode», «condensation». The sound-clusters «re-, de-, con-» can possess neither lexical meaning nor part of speech meaning, but they have differential and distributional meaning. The morphemes of the kind are called pseudo-morphemes (quasi morphemes).
C). Defective morphemic segmentability is the property of words whose component morphemes seldom or never recur in other words. Such morphemes are called unique morphemes. A unique morpheme can be isolated and displays a more or less clear meaning which is upheld by the denotational meaning of the other morpheme of the word (cranberry, strawberry, hamlet).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 12
1. The main features of A.V.Koonin’s approach to phraseology
Phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and not as a part of lexicology.
His classification is based on the combined structural-semantic principle and also considers the level of stability of phraseological units.
Кунин subdivides set-expressions into: phraseological units or idioms(e.g. red tape, mare’s nest, etc.), semi-idioms and phraseomatic units(e.g. win a victory, launch a campaign, etc.).
Phraseological units are structurally separable language units with completely or partially transferred meanings (e.g. to kill two birds with one stone, to be in a brown stubby – to be in low spirits). Semi-idioms have both literal and transferred meanings. The first meaning is usually terminological or professional and the second one is transferred (e.g. to lay down one’s arms). Phraseomatic units have literal or phraseomatically bound meanings (e.g. to pay attention to smth; safe and sound).
Кунин assumes that all types of set expressions are characterized by the following aspects of stability: stability of usage (not created in speech and are reproduced ready-made); lexical stability (components are irreplaceable (e.g. red tape, mare’s nest) or partly irreplaceable within the limits of lexical meaning, (e.g. to dance to smb tune/pipe; a skeleton in the cupboard/closet; to be in deep water/waters)); semantic complexity (despite all occasional changes the meaning is preserved); syntactic fixity.
Idioms and semi-idioms are much more complex in structure than phraseological units. They have a broad stylistic range and they admit of more complex occasional changes.
An integral part of this approach is a method of phraseological identification which helps to single out set expressions in Modern English.
2. Types and ways of forming words
According to Смирницкий word-formation is a system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic patterns. The main two types are: word-derivation and word-composition (compounding).
The basic ways of forming words in word-derivation are affixation and conversion (the formation of a new word by bringing a stem of this word into a different formal paradigm, e.g. a fall from to fall).
There exist other types: semantic word-building (homonymy, polysemy), sound and stress interchange (e.g. blood – bleed; increase), acronymy (e.g. NATO), blending (e.g. smog = smoke + fog) and shortening of words (e.g. lab, maths). But they are different in principle from derivation and compound because they show the result but not the process.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 13
1. Origin of derivational affixes
From the point of view of their origin, derivational affixes are subdivided into native (e.g suf.- nas, ish, dom; pref.- be, mis, un) and foreign (e.g. suf.- ation, ment, able; pref.- dis, ex, re).
Many original affixes historically were independent words, such as dom, hood and ship. Borrowed words brought with them their derivatives, formed after word-building patterns of their languages. And in this way many suffixes and prefixes of foreign origin have become the integral part of existing word-formation (e.g. suf.- age; pref.- dis, re, non). The adoption of foreign words resulted into appearance of hybrid words in English vocabulary. Sometimes a foring stem is combined with a native suffix (e.g. colourless) and vise versa (e.g. joyous).
Reinterpretation of verbs gave rise to suffix-formation source language (e.g. “scape” – seascape, moonscape – came from landscape. And it is not a suffix.).
2. Correlation types of compounds
Motivation and regularity of semantic and structural correlation with free word-groups are the basic factors favouring a high degree of productivity of composition and may be used to set rules guiding spontaneous, analogic formation of new compound words.
The description of compound words through the correlation with variable word-groups makes it possible to classify them into four major classes: 1) adjectival-nominal, 2) verbal-nominal, 3) nominal and 4) verbal-adverbial.
I. Adjectival-nominal comprise for subgroups of compound adjectives:
1) the polysemantic n+a pattern that gives rise to two types:
a) Compound adjectives based on semantic relations of resemblance: snow-white, skin-deep, age-long, etc. Comparative type (as…as).
b) Compound adjectives based on a variety of adverbial relations: colour-blind, road-weary, care-free, etc.
2) the monosemantic pattern n+venbased mainly on the instrumental, locative and temporal relations, e.g. state-owned, home-made. The type is highly productive. Correlative relations are established with word-groups of the Ven+ with/by + N type.
3) the monosemantic num + npattern which gives rise to a small and peculiar group of adjectives, which are used only attributively, e.g. (a) two-day (beard), (a) seven-day (week), etc. The quantative type of relations.
4) a highly productive monosemantic pattern of derivational compound adjectives based on semantic relations of possession conveyed by the suffix -ed. The basic variant is [(a+n)+ -ed], e.g. long-legged. The pattern has two more variants: [(num + n) + -ed), l(n+n)+ -ed],e.g. one-sided, bell-shaped, doll-faced. The type correlates accordingly with phrases with (having) + A+N, with (having) + Num + N, with + N + N or with + N + of + N.
The three other types are classed as compound nouns. All the three types are productive.
II. Verbal-nominal compounds may be described through one derivational structure n+nv, i.e. a combination of a noun-base (in most cases simple) with a deverbal, suffixal noun-base. All the patterns correlate in the final analysis with V+N and V+prp+N type which depends on the lexical nature of the verb:
1) [n+(v+-er)],e.g. bottle-opener, stage-manager, peace-fighter. The pattern is monosemantic and is based on agentive relations that can be interpreted ‘one/that/who does smth’.
2) [n+(v+-ing)],e.g. stage-managing, rocket-flying. The pattern is monosemantic and may be interpreted as ‘the act of doing smth’.
3) [n+(v+-tion/ment)],e.g. office-management, price-reduction.
4) [n+(v + conversion)],e.g. wage-cut, dog-bite, hand-shake, the pattern is based on semantic relations of result, instance, agent, etc.
III. Nominal compounds are all nouns with the most polysemantic and highly-productive derivational pattern n+n; both bases are generally simple stems, e.g. windmill, horse-race, pencil-case. The pattern conveys a variety of semantic relations; the most frequent are the relations of purpose and location. The pattern correlates with nominal word-groups of the N+prp+N type.
IV. Verb-adverb compounds are all derivational nouns, highly productive and built with the help of conversion according to the pattern [(v + adv) + conversion].The pattern correlates with free phrases V + Adv and with all phrasal verbs of different degree of stability. The pattern is polysemantic and reflects the manifold semantic relations of result.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 14
1. Hyponymic structures and lexico-semantic groups
The grouping out of English word stock based on the principle of proximity, may be graphically presented by means of “concentric circles”.
lexico-semantic groups
lexical sets
synonyms
semantic field
The relations between layers are that of inclusion.
The most general term – hyperonym, more special – hyponym (member of the group).
The meaning of the word “plant” includes the idea conveyed by “flower”, which in its turn include the notion of any particular flower. Flower – hyperonim to… and plant – hyponym to…
Hyponymic relations are always hierarchic. If we imply substitution rules we shall see the hyponyms may be replaced be hyperonims but not vice versa (e.g. I bought roses yesterday. “flower” – the sentence won’t change its meaning).
Words describing different sides of one and the same general notion are united in a lexico-semantic group if: a) the underlying notion is not too generalized and all-embracing, like the notions of “time”, “life”, “process”; b) the reference to the underlying is not just an implication in the meaning of lexical unit but forms an essential part in its semantics.
Thus, it is possible to single out the lexico-semantic group of names of “colours” (e.g. pink, red, black, green, white); lexico-semantic group of verbs denoting “physical movement” (e.g. to go, to turn, to run) or “destruction” (e.g. to ruin, to destroy, to explode, to kill).
2. Causes and ways of borrowing
The great influx of borrowings from Latin, English and Scandinavian can be accounted by a number of historical causes. Due to the great influence of the Roman civilisation Latin was for a long time used in England as the language of learning and religion. Old Norse was the language of the conquerors who were on the same level of social and cultural development and who merged rather easily with the local population in the 9th, 10th and the first half of the 11th century. French (Norman dialect) was the language of the other conquerors who brought with them a lot of new notions of a higher social system (developed feudalism), it was the language of upper classes, of official documents and school instruction from the middle of the 11th century to the end of the 14th century.
In the study of the borrowed element in English the main emphasis is as a rule placed on the Middle English period. Borrowings of later periods became the object of investigation only in recent years. These investigations have shown that the flow of borrowings has been steady and uninterrupted. The greatest number has come from French. They refer to various fields of social-political, scientific and cultural life. A large portion of borrowings is scientific and technical terms.
The number and character of borrowed words tell us of the relations between the peoples, the level of their culture, etc.
Some borrowings, however, cannot be explained by the direct influence of certain historical conditions, they do not come along with any new objects or ideas. Such were for instance the words air, place, brave, gay borrowed from French.
Also we can say that the closer the languages, the deeper is the influence. Thus under the influence of the Scandinavian languages, which were closely related to Old English, some classes of words were borrowed that could not have been adopted from non-related or distantly related languages (the pronouns they, their, them); a number of Scandinavian borrowings were felt as derived from native words (they were of the same root and the connection between them was easily seen), e.g. drop(AS.) — drip (Scand.), true (AS.)-tryst (Scand.); the Scandinavian influence even accelerated to a certain degree the development of the grammatical structure of English.
Borrowings enter the language in two ways: through oral speech (early periods of history, usually short and they undergo changes) and through written speech (recent times, preserve spelling and peculiarities of the sound form).
Borrowings may be direct or indirect (e.g., through Latin, French).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 15
1. Types of English dictionaries
English dictionaries may all be roughly divided into two groups — encyclopaedic and linguistic.
The encyclopaedic dictionaries, (The Encyclopaedia Britannica and The Encyclopedia Americana) are scientific reference books dealing with every branch of knowledge, or with one particular branch, usually in alphabetical order. They give information about the extra-linguistic world; they deal with facts and concepts. Linguistic dictionaries are wоrd-books the subject-matter of which is lexical units and their linguistic properties such as pronunciation, meaning, peculiarities of use, etc.
Linguistic dictionaries may be divided into different categories by different criteria.
1. According to the nature of their word-listwe may speak about general dictionaries (include frequency dictionary, a rhyming dictionary, a Thesaurus) and restricted (belong terminological, phraseological, dialectal word-books, dictionaries of new words, of foreign words, of abbreviations, etc).
2. According to the information they provide all linguistic dictionaries fall into two groups: explanatory and specialized.
Explanatory dictionaries present a wide range of data, especially with regard to the semantic aspect of the vocabulary items entered (e.g. New Oxford Dictionary of English).
Specialized dictionaries deal with lexical units only in relation to some of their characteristics (e.g. etymology, frequency, pronunciation, usage)
3. According to the language of explanations all dictionaries are divided into: monolingual and bilingual.
4. Dictionaries also fall into diachronic and synchronic with regard of time. Diachronic (historical) dictionaries reflect the development of the English vocabulary by recording the history of form and meaning for every word registered (e.g. Oxford English Dictionary). Synchronic (descriptive) dictionaries are concerned with the present-day meaning and usage of words (e.g. Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English).
(Phraseological dictionaries, New Words dictionaries, Dictionaries of slang, Usage dictionaries, Dictionaries of word-frequency, A Reverse dictionary, Pronouncing dictionaries, Etymological dictionaries, Ideographic dictionaries, synonym-books, spelling reference books, hard-words dictionaries, etc.)
2. The role of native and borrowed elements in English
The number of borrowings in Old English was small. In the Middle English period there was an influx of loans. It is often contended that since the Norman Conquest borrowing has been the chief factor in the enrichment of the English vocabulary and as a result there was a sharp decline in the productivity of word-formation. Historical evidence, however, testifies to the fact that throughout its entire history, even in the periods of the mightiest influxes of borrowings, other processes, no less intense, were in operation — word-formation and semantic development, which involved both native and borrowed elements.
If the estimation of the role of borrowings is based on the study of words recorded in the dictionary, it is easy to overestimate the effect of the loan words, as the number of native words is extremely small compared with the number of borrowings recorded. The only true way to estimate the relation of the native to the borrowed element is to consider the two as actually used in speech. If one counts every word used, including repetitions, in some reading matter, the proportion of native to borrowed words will be quite different. On such a count, every writer uses considerably more native words than borrowings. Shakespeare, for example, has 90%, Milton 81%, Tennyson 88%. It shows how important is the comparatively small nucleus of native words.
Different borrowings are marked by different frequency value. Those well established in the vocabulary may be as frequent in speech as native words, whereas others occur very rarely.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 16
1. The main variants of the English language
In Modern linguistics the distinction is made between Standard English and territorial variants and local dialects of the English language.
Standard English may be defined as that form of English which is current and literary, substantially uniform and recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken or understood. Most widely accepted and understood either within an English-speaking country or throughout the entire English-speaking world.
Variants of English are regional varieties possessing a literary norm. There are distinguished variants existing on the territory of the United Kingdom (British English, Scottish English and Irish English), and variants existing outside the British Isles (American English, Canadian English, Australian English, New Zealand English, South African English and Indian English). British English is often referred to the Written Standard English and the pronunciation known as Received Pronunciation (RP).
Local dialects are varieties of English peculiar to some districts, used as means of oral communication in small localities; they possess no normalized literary form.
Variants of English in the United Kingdom
Scottish English and Irish English have a special linguistic status as compared with dialects because of the literature composed in them.
Variants of English outside the British Isles
Outside the British Isles there are distinguished the following variants of the English language: American English, Canadian English, Australian English, New Zealand English, South African English, Indian English and some others. Each of these has developed a literature of its own, and is characterized by peculiarities in phonetics, spelling, grammar and vocabulary.
2. Basic problems of dictionary-compiling
Lexicography, the science, of dictionary-compiling, is closely connected with lexicology, both dealing with the same problems — the form, meaning, usage and origin of vocabulary units — and making use of each other’s achievements.
Some basic problems of dictionary-compiling:
1) the selection of lexical units for inclusion,
2) their arrangement,
3) the setting of the entries,
4) the selection and arrangement (grouping) of word-meanings,
5) the definition of meanings,
6) illustrative material,
7) supplementary material.
1) The selection of lexical units for inclusion.
It is necessary to decide: a) what types of lexical units will be chosen for inclusion; b) the number of items; c) what to select and what to leave out in the dictionary; d) which form of the language, spoken or written or both, the dictionary is to reflect; e) whether the dictionary should contain obsolete units, technical terms, dialectisms, colloquialisms, and so forth.
The choice depends upon the type to which the dictionary will belong, the aim the compilers pursue, the prospective user of the dictionary, its size, the linguistic conceptions of the dictionary-makers and some other considerations.
2) Arrangement of entries.
There are two modes of presentation of entries: the alphabetical order and the cluster-type (arranged in nests, based on some principle – words of the same root).
3) The setting of the entries.
Since different types of dictionaries differ in their aim, in the information they provide, in their size, etc., they of necessity differ in the structure and content of the entry.
The most complicated type of entry is that found in general explanatory dictionaries of the synchronic type (the entry usually presents the following data: accepted spelling and pronunciation; grammatical characteristics including the indication of the part of speech of each entry word, whether nouns are countable or uncountable, the transitivity and intransitivity of verbs and irregular grammatical forms; definitions of meanings; modern currency; illustrative examples; derivatives; phraseology; etymology; sometimes also synonyms and antonyms.
4) The selection and arrangement (grouping) of word-meanings.
The number of meanings a word is given and their choice in this or that dictionary depend, mainly, on two factors: 1) on what aim the compilers set themselves and 2) what decisions they make concerning the extent to which obsolete, archaic, dialectal or highly specialised meanings should be recorded, how the problem of polysemy and homonymy is solved, how cases of conversion are treated, how the segmentation of different meanings of a polysemantic word is made, etc.
There are at least three different ways in which the word meanings are arranged: a) in the sequence of their historical development (called historical order), b) in conformity with frequency of use that is with the most common meaning first (empirical or actual order), c) in their logical connection (logical order).
5) The definition of meanings.
Meanings of words may be defined in different ways: 1) by means of linguistic definitions that are only concerned with words as speech material, 2) by means of encyclopaedic definitions that are concerned with things for which the words are names (nouns, proper nouns and terms), 3) be means of synonymous words and expressions (verbs, adjectives), 4) by means of cross-references (derivatives, abbreviations, variant forms). The choice depends on the nature of the word (the part of speech, the aim and size of the dictionary).
6) Illustrative material.
It depends on the type of the dictionary and on the aim the compliers set themselves.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 17
1. Sources of compounds
The actual process of building compound words may take different forms: 1) Compound words as a rule are built spontaneously according to productive distributional formulas of the given period. Formulas productive at one time may lose their productivity at another period. Thus at one time the process of building verbs by compounding adverbial and verbal stems was productive, and numerous compound verbs like, e.g. outgrow, offset, inlay (adv + v), were formed. The structure ceased to be productive and today practically no verbs are built in this way.
2) Compounds may be the result of a gradual process of semantic isolation and structural fusion of free word-groups. Such compounds as forget-me-not; bull’s-eye—’the centre of a target; a kind of hard, globular candy’; mainland—‘acontinent’ all go back to free phrases which became semantically and structurally isolated in the course of time. The words that once made up these phrases have lost their integrity, within these particular formations, the whole phrase has become isolated in form, «specialized in meaning and thus turned into an inseparable unit—a word having acquired semantic and morphological unity. Most of the syntactic compound nouns of the (a+n) structure, e.g. bluebell, blackboard, mad-doctor, are the result of such semantic and structural isolation of free word-groups; to give but one more example, highway was once actually a high way for it was raised above the surrounding countryside for better drainage and ease of travel. Now we use highway without any idea of the original sense of the first element.
2. Lexical differences of territorial variants of English
All lexical units may be divided into general English (common to all the variants) and locally-marked (specific to present-day usage in one of the variants and not found in the others). Different variants of English use different words for the same objects (BE vs. AE: flat/apartment, underground/subway, pavement/sidewalk, post/mail).
Speaking about lexical differences between the two variants of the English language, the following cases are of importance:
1. Cases where there are no equivalent words in one of the variant! (British English has no equivalent to the American word drive-in (‘a cinema or restaurant that one can visit without leaving one’s car’)).
2. Cases where different words are used for the same denotatum, e.g. sweets (BrE) — candy (AmE); reception clerk (BrE) — desk clerk (AmE).
3. Cases where some words are used in both variants but are much commoner in one of them. For example, shop and store are used in both variants, but the former is frequent in British English and the latter in American English.
4. Cases where one (or more) lexico-semantic variant(s) is (are) specific to either British English or American English (e.g. faculty, denoting ‘all the teachers and other professional workers of a university or college’ is used only in American English; analogous opposition in British English or Standard English — teaching staff).
5. Cases where one and the same word in one of its lexico-semantic variants is used oftener in British English than in American English (brew — ‘a cup of tea’ (BrE), ‘a beer or coffee drink’ (AmE).
Cases where the same words have different semantic structure in British English and American English (homely — ‘home-loving, domesticated, house-proud’ (BrE), ‘unattractive in appearance’ (AmE); politician ‘a person who is professionally involved in politics’, neutral, (BrE), ‘a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organisation’ (AmE).
Besides, British English and American English have their own derivational peculiarities (some of the affixes more frequently used in American English are: -ее (draftee — ‘a young man about to be enlisted’), -ster (roadster — ‘motor-car for long journeys by road’), super- (super-market — ‘a very large shop that sells food and other products for the home’); AmE favours morphologically more complex words (transportation), BrE uses clipped forms (transport); AmE prefers to form words by means of affixes (burglarize), BrE uses back-formation (burgle from burglar).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 18
1. Methods and procedures of lexicological analysis
The process of scientific investigation may be subdivided into several stages:
1. Observation (statements of fact must be based on observation)
2. Classification (orderly arrangement of the data)
3. Generalization (formulation of a generalization or hypothesis, rule a law)
4. The verifying process. Here, various procedures of linguistic analysis are commonly applied:
1). Contrastive analysis attempts to find out similarities and differences in both philogenically related and non-related languages. In fact contrastive analysis grew as the result of the errors which are made recurrently by foreign language students. They can be often traced back to the differences in structure between the target language and the language of the learner, detailed comparison of these two languages has been named contrastive analysis.
Contrastive analysis brings to light the essence of what is usually described as idiomatic English, idiomatic Russian etc., i.e. the peculiar way in which every language combines and structures in lexical units various concepts to denote extra-linguistic reality.
2). Statistical analysis is the quantitative study of a language phenomenon. Statistical linguistics is nowadays generally recognised as one of the major branches of linguistics. (frequency – room, collocability)
3). Immediate constituents analysis. The theory of Immediate Constituents (IC) was originally elaborated as an attempt to determine the ways in which lexical units are relevantly related to one another. The fundamental aim of IC analysis is to segment a set of lexical units into two maximally independent sequences or ICs thus revealing the hierarchical structure of this set.
4). Distributional analysis and co-occurrence. By the term distribution we understand the occurrence of a lexical unit relative to other lexical units of the same level (the position which lexical units occupy or may occupy in the text or in the flow of speech). Distributional analysis is mainly applied by the linguist to find out sameness or difference of meaning.
5). Transformational analysis can be definedas repatterning of various distributional structures in order to discover difference or sameness of meaning of practically identical distributional patterns. It may be also described as a kind of translation (transference of a message by different means).
6). Componental analysis (1950’s). In this analysis linguists proceed from the assumption that the smallest units of meaning are sememes (семема — семантическая единица) or semes (сема (минимальная единица содержания)) and that sememes and lexemes (or lexical items) are usually not in one-to-one but in one-to-many correspondence (e.g. in lexical item “woman”, semems are – human, female, adult). This analysis deals with individual meanings.
7). Method of Semantic Differential (set up by American psycholinguists). The analysis is concerned with measurement of differences of the connotational meaning, or the emotive charge, which is very hard to grasp.
2. Ways and means of enriching the vocabulary of English
Development of the vocabulary can be described a process of the never-ending growth. There are two ways of enriching the vocabulary:
A. Vocabulary extension — the appearance of new lexical items. New vocabulary units appear mainly as a result of: 1) productive or patterned ways of word-formation (affixation, conversion, composition); 2) non-patterned ways of word-creation (lexicalization – transformation of a word-form into a word, e.g. arms-arm, customs (таможня)-custom); shortening — transformation of a word-group into a word or a change of the word-structure resulting in a new lexical item, e.g. RD for Road, St for Street; substantivization – the finals to the final exams, acronyms (NATO) and letter abbreviation (D.J. – disk jokey), blendings (brunch – breakfast and lunch), clipping – shortening of a word of two or more syllables (bicycle – bike, pop (clipping plus substativization) – popular music)); 3) borrowing from other languages.
Borrowing as a means of replenishing the vocabulary of present-day English is of much lesser importance and is active mainly in the field of scientific terminology. 1) Words made up of morphemes of Latin and Greek origin (e.g. –tron: mesotron; tele-: telelecture; -in: protein). 2) True borrowings which reflect the way of life, the peculiarities of development of speech communities from which they come. (e.g. kolkhoz, sputnik). 3) Loan-translations also reflect the peculiarities of life and easily become stable units of the vocabulary (e.g. fellow-traveler, self-criticism)
B. Semantic extension — the appearance of new meanings of existing words which may result in homonyms. The semantic development of words already available in the language is the main source of the qualitative growth of the vocabulary but does not essentially change the vocabulary quantatively.
The most active ways of word creation are clippings and acronyms.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 19
1. Means of composition
From the point of view of the means by which the components are joined together compound words may be classified into:
1) Words formed by merely placing one constituent after another (e.g. house-dog, pot-pie) can be: asyntactic (the order of bases runs counter to the order in which the words can be brought together under the rules of syntax of the language, e.g. red-hot, pale-blue, oil-rich) and syntactic (the order of words arranged according to the rules of syntax, e.g. mad-doctor, blacklist).
2) Compound words whose ICs are joined together with a special linking-element — linking vowels (o) and consonants (s), e.g. speedometer, tragicomic, statesman.
The additive compound adjectives linked with the help of the vowel [ou] are limited to the names of nationalities and represent a specific group with a bound root for the first component, e.g. Sino-Japanese, Afro-Asian, Anglo-Saxon.
2. Synchronic and diachronic approaches to conversion
Conversion is the formation of a new word through changes in its paradigm (category of a part of speech). As a paradigm is a morphological category, conversion can be described as a morphological way of forming words (Смирницкий). The term was introduced by Henry Sweet.
The causes that made conversion so widely spread are to be approached diachronically. Nouns and verbs have become identical in form firstly as a result of the loss of endings. The similar phenomenon can be observed in words borrowed from the French language. Thus, from the diachronic point of view distinctions should be made between homonymous word-pairs, which appeared as a result of the loss of inflections (окончание, изменяемая часть слова).
In the course of time the semantic structure of the base nay acquire a new meaning or several meanings under the influence of the meanings of the converted word (reconversion).
Synchronically we deal with pairs of words related through conversion that coexist in contemporary English. A careful examination of the relationship between the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme and the part-of-speech meaning of the stem within a conversion pair reveals that in one of the two words the former does not correspond to the latter.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 20
1. Denotational and connotational aspects of meaning
The lexical meaning comprises two main components: the denotational aspect of meaning and the connotational aspect of meaning. The term «denotational aspect of meaning» is derived from «to denote» and it is through this component of meaning that the main information is conveyed in the process of communication. Besides, it helps to insure references to things common to all the speakers of the given language (e.g. «chemistry»- I’m not an expert in it, but I know what it is about, «dentist», «spaceship»).
The connotational aspect may be called «optional». It conveys additional information in the process of communication. And it may denote the emotive charge and the stylistic value of the word. The emotive charge is the emotive evaluation inherent in the connotational component of the lexical meaning (e.g. «notorious» => [widely known] => for criminal acts, bad behaviour, bad traits of character; «famous» => [widely known] => for special achievement etc.).
Positive/Negative evaluation; emotive charge/stylistic value.
«to love» — neutral
«to adore» — to love greatly => the emotive charge is higher than in «to love»
«to shake» — neutral.
«to shiver» — is stronger => higher emotive charge.
Mind that the emotive charge is not a speech characteristic of the word. It’s a language phenomenon => it remains stable within the basical meaning of the word.
If associations with the lexical meaning concern the situation, the social circumstances (formal/informal), the social relations between the interlocutors (polite/rough), the type or purpose of communication (poetic/official)the connotation is stylistically coloured. It is termed as stylistic reference. The main stylistic layers of the vocabulary are:
Literary «parent» «to pass into the next world» — bookish
Neutral «father» «to die»
Colloquial «dad» «to kick the bucket»
But the denotational meaning is the same.
2. Semantic fields
lexico-semantic groups
lexical sets
synonyms
semantic field
The broadest semantic group is usually referred to as the semantic field. It is a closely neat section of vocabulary characterized by a common concept (e.g. emotions). The common semantic component of the field is called the common dominator. All members of the field are semantically independent, as the meaning of each is determined by the presence of others. Semantic field may be very impressive, covering big conceptual areas (emotions, movements, space). Words comprising the field may belong to different parts of speech.
If the underlying notion is broad enough to include almost all-embracing sections of vocabulary we deal with semantic fields (e.g. cosmonaut, spacious, to orbit – belong to the semantic field of ‘space’).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 21
1. Assimilation of borrowings
The term ‘assimilation of borrowings’ is used to denote a partial or total conformation to the phonetical, graphical and morphological standards of the English language and its semantic system.
According to the degree of assimilation all borrowed words can be divided into three groups:
1) completely assimilated borrowings;
2) partially assimilated borrowings;
3) unassimilated borrowings or barbarisms.
1. Completely assimilated borrowed words follow all morphological, phonetical and orthographic standards, take an active part in word-formation. The morphological structure and motivation of completely assimilated borrowings remain usually transparent, so that they are morphologically analyzable and therefore supply the English vocabulary not only with free forms but also with bound forms, as affixes are easily perceived and separated in series of borrowed words that contain them (e.g. the French suffixes —age, -ance and -ment).
They are found in all the layers of older borrowings, e. g. cheese (the first layer of Latin borrowings), husband (Scand),face (Fr), animal (Latin, borrowed during the revival of learning).
A loan word never brings into the receiving language the whole of its semantic structure if it is polysemantic in the original language (e.g., ‘sport’in Old French — ‘pleasures, making merry and entertainments in general’, now — outdoor games and exercise).
2. Partially assimilated borrowed words may be subdivided depending on the aspect that remains unaltered into:
a) borrowings not completely assimilated graphically (e.g., Fr. ballet, buffet;some may keep a diacritic mark: café, cliché;retained digraphs (ch, qu, ou, etc.): bouquet, brioche);
b) borrowings not completely assimilated phonetically (e.g., Fr. machine, cartoon, police(accent is on the final syllable), [3] — bourgeois, prestige, regime(stress + contain sounds or combinations of sounds that are not standard for the English language));
c) borrowings not assimilated grammatically (e.g., Latin or Greek borrowings retain original plural forms: crisis — crises, phenomenon — phenomena;
d) borrowings not assimilated semantically because they denote objects and notions peculiar to the country from which they come (e. g. sari, sombrero, shah, rajah, toreador, rickshaw(Chinese), etc.
3. Unassimilated borrowings or barbarisms. This group includes words from other languages used by English people in conversation or in writing but not assimilated in any way, and for which there are corresponding English equivalents, e.g. the Italian addio, ciao— ‘good-bye’.
Etymological doublets are two or more words originating from the same etymological source, but differing in phonetic shape and meaning (e.g. the words ‘whole’(originally meant ‘healthy’, ‘free from disease’) and ‘hale’both come from OE ‘hal’:one by the normal development of OE ‘a’ into ‘o’, the other from a northern dialect in which this modification did not take place. Only the latter has servived in its original meaning).
2. Semi-affixes
There is a specific group of morphemes whose derivational function does not allow one to refer them unhesitatingly either to the derivational affixes or bases. In words like half-done, half-broken, half-eaten and ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-dressed the ICs ‘half-‘ and ‘ill-‘ are given in linguistic literature different interpretations: they are described both as bases and as derivational prefixes. The comparison of these ICs with the phonetically identical stems in independent words ‘ill’ and ‘half’ as used in such phrases as to speak ill of smb, half an hour ago makes it obvious that in words like ill-fed, ill-mannered, half-done the ICs ‘ill-‘ and ‘half-‘ are losing both their semantic and structural identity with the stems of the independent words. They are all marked by a different distributional meaning which is clearly revealed through the difference of their collocability as compared with the collocability of the stems of the independently functioning words. As to their lexical meaning they have become more indicative of a generalizing meaning of incompleteness and poor quality than the individual meaning proper to the stems of independent words and thus they function more as affixational morphemes similar to the prefixes ‘out-, over-, under-, semi-, mis-‘ regularly forming whole classes of words.
Besides, the high frequency of these morphemes in the above-mentioned generalized meaning in combination with the numerous bases built on past participles indicates their closer ties with derivational affixes than bases. Yet these morphemes retain certain lexical ties with the root-morphemes in the stems of independent words and that is why are felt as occupying an intermediate position, as morphemes that are changing their class membership regularly functioning as derivational prefixes but still retaining certain features of root-morphemes. That is why they are sometimes referred to as semi-affixes. To this group we should also refer ‘well-‘ and ‘self-‘ (well-fed, well-done, self-made), ‘-man’ in words like postman, cabman, chairman, ‘-looking’ in words like foreign-looking, alive-looking, strange-looking, etc.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 22
1. Degrees of assimilation of borrowings and factors determining it
Even a superficial examination of the English word-stock shows that there are words among them that are easily recognized as foreign. And there are others that have become so firmly rooted in the language that it is sometimes extremely difficult to distinguish them from words of Anglo-Saxon origin (e.g. pupil, master, city, river, etc.).
Unassimilated words differ from assimilated ones in their pronunciation, spelling, semantic structure, frequency and sphere of application. There are also words that are assimilated in some respects and unassimilated in others – partially assimilated words (graphically, phonetically, grammatically, semantically).
The degree of assimilation depends on the first place upon the time of borrowing: the older the borrowing, the more thoroughly it tends to follow normal English habits of accentuation, pronunciation and etc. (window, chair, dish, box).
Also those of recent date may be completely made over to conform to English patterns if they are widely and popularly employed (French – clinic, diplomat).
Another factor determining the process of assimilation is the way in which the borrowings were taken over into the language. Words borrowed orally are assimilated more readily; they undergo greater changes, whereas with words adopted through writing the process of assimilation is longer and more laborious.
2. Lexical, grammatical valency of words
There are two factors that influence the ability of words to form word-groups. They are lexical and grammatical valency of words. The point is that compatibility of words is determined by restrictions imposed by the inner structure of the English word stock (e.g. a bright idea = a good idea; but it is impossible to say «a bright performance», or «a bright film»; «heavy metal» means difficult to digest, but it is impossible to say «heavy cheese»; to take [catch] a chance, but it is possible to say only «to take precautions»).
The range of syntactic structures or patterns in which words may appear is defined as their grammatical valency. The grammatical valency depends on the grammatical structure of the language (e.g. to convince smb. of smth/that smb do smth; to persuade smb to do smth).
Any departure from the norms of lexical or grammatical valency can either make a phrase unintelligible or be felt as a stylistic device.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 23
1. Classification of homonyms
Homonyms are words that are identical in their sound-form or spelling but different in meaning and distribution.
1) Homonyms proper are words similar in their sound-form and graphic but different in meaning (e.g. «a ball»- a round object for playing; «a ball»- a meeting for dances).
2) Homophones are words similar in their sound-form but different in spelling and meaning (e.g. «peace» — «piece», «sight»- «site»).
3) Homographs are words which have similar spelling but different sound-form and meaning (e.g. «a row» [rau]- «a quarrel»; «a row» [rəu] — «a number of persons or things in a more or less straight line»)
There is another classification by Смирницкий. According to the type of meaning in which homonyms differ, homonyms proper can be classified into:
I. Lexical homonyms — different in lexical meaning (e.g. «ball»);
II. Lexical-grammatical homonyms which differ in lexical-grammatical meanings (e.g. «a seal» — тюлень, «to seal» — запечатывать).
III. Grammatical homonyms which differ in grammatical meaning only (e.g. «used» — Past Indefinite, «used»- Past Participle; «pupils»- the meaning of plurality, «pupil’s»- the meaning of possessive case).
All cases of homonymy may be subdivided into full and partial homonymy. If words are identical in all their forms, they are full homonyms (e.g. «ball»-«ball»). But: «a seal» — «to seal» have only two homonymous forms, hence, they are partial homonyms.
2. Lexical and grammatical meanings of word-groups
1. The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. Thus, the lexical meaning of the word-group “red flower” may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words “red” and “flower”. It should be pointed out, however, that the term combined lexical meaning is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive result of all the lexical meanings of the component members. The lexical meaning of the word-group predominates over the lexical meanings of its constituents.
2. The structural meaning of the word-group is the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of its constituents (e.g. “school grammar” – школьная грамматика and “grammar school” – грамматическая школа, are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words. The structural meaning is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the word-group but not either by the word school or the word grammar.
The lexical and structural components of meaning in word-groups are interdependent and inseparable, e.g. the structural pattern of the word-groups all day long, all night long, all week long in ordinary usage and the word-group all the sun long is identical. Replacing day, night, week by another noun – sun doesn’t change the structural meaning of the pattern. But the noun sun continues to carry the semantic value, the lexical meaning that it has in word-groups of other structural patterns.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 24
1. Derivational bases
The derivational bases is the part of the word which establishes connections with the lexical unit that motivates the derivative and defines its lexical meaning. The rule of word formation is applied. Structurally, they fall into 3 classes: 1. bases that coincide with morphological stems (e.g. beautiful (d.b.) — beautifully); 2. bases that coincide with word-forms (e.g. unknown — known); 3. bases that coincide with word groups; adjectives and nouns (e.g. blue-eyed – having blue eyes, easy-going).
2. Emotive charge and stylistic reference
The emotive charge is the emotive evaluation inherent in the connotational component of the lexical meaning (e.g. «notorious» => [widely known] => for criminal acts, bad behaviour, bad traits of character; «famous» => [widely known] => for special achievement etc.).
Positive/Negative evaluation; emotive charge/stylistic value.
«to love» — neutral
«to adore» — to love greatly => the emotive charge is higher than in «to love»
«to shake» — neutral.
«to shiver» — is stronger => higher emotive charge.
Mind that the emotive charge is not a speech characteristic of the word. It’s a language phenomenon => it remains stable within the basical meaning of the word.
The emotive charge varies in different word-classes. In some of them, in interjections (междометия), e.g., the emotive element prevails, whereas in conjunctions the emotive charge is as a rule practically non-existent. The emotive implication of the word is to a great extent subjective as it greatly depends of the personal experience of the speaker, the mental imagery the word evokes in him. (hospital – architect, invalid or the man living across the road)
If associations with the lexical meaning concern the situation, the social circumstances (formal/informal), the social relations between the interlocutors (polite/rough), the type or purpose of communication (poetic/official)the connotation is stylistically coloured. It is termed as stylistic reference. The main stylistic layers of the vocabulary are:
Literary «parent» «to pass into the next world» — bookish
Neutral «father» «to die»
Colloquial «dad» «to kick the bucket»
In literary (bookish) words we can single out: 1) terms or scientific words (e.g. renaissance, genocide, teletype); 2) poetic words and archaisms (e.g. aught—’anything’, ere—’before’, nay—’no’); 3) barbarisms and foreign words (e.g. bouquet).
The colloquial words may be, subdivided into:
1) Common colloquial words.
2) Slang (e.g. governor for ‘father’, missus for ‘wife’, a gag for ‘a joke’, dotty for ‘insane’).
3) Professionalisms — words used in narrow groups bound by the same occupation (e.g., lab for ‘laboratory’, a buster for ‘a bomb’).
4) Jargonisms — words marked by their use within a particular social group and bearing a secret and cryptic character (e.g. a sucker — ‘a person who is easily deceived’).
5) Vulgarisms — coarse words that are notgenerally used in public (e.g. bloody, hell, damn, shut up)
5) Dialectical words (e.g. lass – девчушка, kirk — церковь).
6) Colloquial coinages (e.g. newspaperdom, allrightnik)
Stylistic reference and emotive charge of words are closely connected and to a certain degree interdependent. As a rule stylistically coloured words — words belonging to all stylistic layers except the neutral style are observed to possess a considerable emotive charge (e.g. daddy, mammy are more emotional than the neutral father, mother).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 25
1. Historical changeability of word-structure
The derivational structure of a word is liable to various changes in the course of time. Certain morphemes may become fused together or may be lost altogether (simplification). As a result of this process, radical changes in the word may take place: root morphemes may turn into affixational and semi-affixational morphemes, compound words may be transformed into derived or even simple words, polymorphic words may become monomorphic.
E.g. derived word wisdom goes back to the compound word wīsdom in which – dom was a root-morpheme and a stem of independent word with the meaning ‘decision, judgment’. The whole compound word meant ‘a wise decision’. In the course of time the meaning of the second component dom became more generalized and turned into the suffix forming abstract nouns (e.g. freedom, boredom).
Sometimes the spelling, of some Modern English words as compared with their sound-form reflects the changes these words have undergone (e.g. cupboard — [‘kʌbəd] is a monomorphic non-motivated simple word. But earlier it consisted of two bases — [kʌp] and [bɔːd] and signified ‘a board to put cups on’. Nowadays, it denotes neither cup nor board: a boot cupboard, a clothes cupboard).
2. Criteria of synonymity
1. It is sometimes argued that the meaning of two words is identical if they can denote the same referent (if an object or a certain class of objects can always be denoted by either of the two words.
This approach to synonymy does not seem acceptable because the same referent in different speech situations can always be denoted by different words which cannot be considered synonyms (e.g. the same woman can be referred to as my mother by her son and my wife by her husband – both words denote the same referent but there is no semantic relationship of synonymy between them).
2. Attempts have been made to introduce into the definition of synonymity the criterion of interchangeability in linguistic contexts (they say: synonyms are words which can replace each other in any given context without the slightest alteration in the denotational or connotational meaning). It is argued that for the linguist similarity of meaning implies that the words are synonymous if either of then can occur in the same context. And words interchangeable in any given context are very rare.
3. Modern linguists generally assume that there are no complete synonyms — if two words are phonemically different then their meanings are also different (buy, purchase – Purchasing Department). It follows that practically no words are substitutable for one another in all contexts (e.g. the rain in April was abnormal/exceptional – are synonymous; but My son is exceptional/abnormal – have different meaning).
Also interchangeability alone cannot serve as a criterion of synonymity. We may safely assume that synonyms are words interchangeable in some contexts. But the reverse is certainly not true as semantically different words of the same part of speech are interchangeable in quite a number of contexts (e.g. I saw a little girl playing in the garden the adj. little may be replaced by a number of different adj. pretty, tall, English).
Thus a more acceptable definition of synonyms seems to be the following: synonyms are words different in their sound-form, but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 26
1. Immediate Constituents analysis
The theory of Immediate Constituents (IC) was originally elaborated as an attempt to determine the ways in which lexical units are relevantly related to one another. The fundamental aim of IC analysis is to segment a set of lexical units into two maximally independent sequences or ICs thus revealing the hierarchical structure of this set (e.g. the word-group a black dress in severe styleis divided intoa black dress / in severe style.Successive segmentation results in Ultimate Constituents (UC) — two-facet units that cannot be segmented into smaller units having both sound-form and meaning (e.g. a | black | dress | in | severe | style).
The meaning of the sentence, word-group, etc. and the IC binary segmentation are interdependent (e.g. fat major’s wifemay mean that either ‘the major is fat’ (fat major’s | wife) or ‘his wife is fat’ (fat | major’s wife).
The Immediate Constituent analysis is mainly applied in lexicological investigation to find out the derivational structure of lexical units (e.g. to denationalise => de | nationalise (it’s a prefixal derivative, because there is no such sound-forms as *denation or *denational). There are also numerous cases when identical morphemic structure of different words is insufficient proof of the identical pattern of their derivative structure which can be revealed only by IC analysis (e.g. words which contain two root-morphemes and one derivational morpheme — snow-coveredwhich is a compound consisting of two stems snow + covered, but blue-eyedis a suffixal derivative (blue+eye)+-ed). It may be inferred from the examples above that ICs represent the word-formation structure while the UCs show the morphemic structure of polymorphic words.
2. Characteristic features of learner’s dictionaries
Traditionally the term learner’s dictionaries is confined to dictionaries specifically complied to meet the demands of the learners for whom English is not their mother tongue. They nay be classified in accordance with different principles, the main are: 1) the scope of the word-list, and 2) the nature of the information afforded. Depending on that, learner’s dictionaries are usually divided into: a) elementary/basic/pre-intermediate; b) intermediate; c) upper-intermediate/advanced learner’s dictionaries.
1. The scope of the word-list. Pre-intermediate as well as intermediate learner’s dictionaries contain only the most essential and important – key words of English, whereas upper-intermediate learner’s dictionaries contain lexical units that the prospective user may need.
Purpose: to dive information on what is currently accepted in modern English. Excluded: archaic and dialectal words, technical and scientific terms, substandard words and phrases. Included: colloquial and slang words, foreign words – if they are of sort to be met in reading or conversation. (frequency)
2. The nature of the information afforded. They may be divided into two groups: 1) learner’s dictionary proper (those giving equal attention to the words semantic characteristics and the way it is used in speech); 2) those presenting different aspects of the vocabulary: dictionaries of collocations, derivational dictionaries (word-structure), dictionaries of synonyms and antonyms and some others.
Pre-intermediate and intermediate learner’s dictionaries differ from advanced sometimes greatly in the number of meanings given and the language used for the description of these meanings.
Pictorial material is widely used. Pictures may define the meanings of different nouns as well as adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. The order of arrangement of meaning is empiric (beginning with the main meaning to minor ones).
The supplementary material in learner’s dictionaries may include lists of irregular verbs, common abbreviations, geographic names, special signs and symbols used in various branches of science, tables of weights and measures and so on.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 27
1. Links between lexicology and other branches of linguistics
Lexicology is a branch of linguistics dealing with a systematic description and study of the vocabulary of the language as regards its origin, development, meaning and current use. The term is composed of 2 words of Greek origin: lexis — word + logos – word’s discourse. So lexicology is a word about words, or the science of a word. However, lexicology is concerned not only with words because the study of the structure of words implies references to morphemes which make up words.
On the other hand, the study of semantic properties of a word implies references to variable (переменный) or stable (set) word groups, of which words are compounding parts. Because it is the semantic properties of words that define the general rules of their joining together.
Comparative linguistics and Contrasted linguistics are of great importance in classroom teaching and translation.
Lexicology is inseparable from: phonetics, grammar, and linguostylistics because phonetics also investigates vocabulary units but from the point of view of their sounds. Grammar in its turn deals with various means of expressing grammar peculiarities and grammar relations between words. Linguostylistics studies the nature, functioning and structure of stylistic devices and the styles of a language.
Language is a means of communication, therefore the social essence of inherent in the language itself. The branch of linguistics dealing with relations between the way the language function and develops on the one hand and develops the social life on the other is called sociolinguistics.
2. Grammatical and lexical meanings of words
The word «meaning» is not homogeneous. Its components are described as «types of meaning». The two main types of meaning are grammatical and lexical meaning.
The grammatical meaning is the component of meaning, recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of words (e.g. reads, draws, writes – 3d person, singular; books, boys – plurality; boy’s, father’s – possessive case).
The lexical meaning is the meaning proper to the linguistic unit in all its forms and distribution (e.g. boy, boys, boy’s, boys’ – grammatical meaning and case are different but in all of them we find the semantic component «male child»).
Both grammatical meaning and lexical meaning make up the word meaning and neither of them can exist without the other.
There’s also the 3d type: lexico-grammatical (part of speech) meaning. Third type of meaning is called lexico-grammatical meaning (or part-of-speech meaning). It is a common denominator of all the meanings of words belonging to a lexical-grammatical class (nouns, verbs, adjectives etc. – all nouns have common meaning oа thingness, while all verbs express process or state).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 28
1. Types of word segmentability
Within the English word stock maybe distinguished morphologically segment-able and non-segmentable words (soundless, rewrite — segmentable; book, car — non-segmentable).
Morphemic segmentability may be of three types: 1. complete, 2. conditional, 3. defective.
A). Complete segmentability is characteristic of words with transparent morphemic structure. Their morphemes can be easily isolated which are called morphemes proper or full morphemes (e.g. senseless, endless, useless). The transparent morphemic structure is conditioned by the fact that their constituent morphemes recur with the same meaning in a number of other words.
B). Conditional segmentability characterizes words segmentation of which into constituent morphemes is doubtful for semantic reasons (e.g. retain, detain, contain). The sound clusters «re-, de-, con-» seem to be easily isolated since they recur in other words but they have nothing in common with the morphemes «re, de-, con-» which are found in the words «rewrite», «decode», «condensation». The sound-clusters «re-, de-, con-» can possess neither lexical meaning nor part of speech meaning, but they have differential and distributional meaning. The morphemes of the kind are called pseudo-morphemes (quasi morphemes).
C). Defective morphemic segmentability is the property of words whose component morphemes seldom or never recur in other words. Such morphemes are called unique morphemes. A unique morpheme can be isolated and displays a more or less clear meaning which is upheld by the denotational meaning of the other morpheme of the word (cranberry, strawberry, hamlet).
2. Basic criteria of semantic derivation within conversion pairs
There are different criteria if differentiating between the source and the derived word in a conversion pair.
1. The criterion of the non-correspondence between the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme and the part-of-the speech meaning of the stem in one of the two words in a conversion pair. This criterion cannot be implied to abstract nouns.
2. The synonymity criterion is based on the comparison of a conversion pair with analogous synonymous word-pairs (e.g. comparing to chat – chat with synonymous pair of words to converse – conversation, it becomes obvious that the noun chat is the derived member as their semantic relations are similar). This criterion can be applied only to deverbal substantives.
3. The criterion of derivational relations. In the word-cluster hand – to hand – handful – handy the derived words of the first degree of derivation have suffixes added to the nominal base. Thus, the noun hand is the center of the word-cluster. This fact makes it possible to conclude that the verb to hand is the derived member.
4. The criterion of semantic derivation is based on semantic relations within the conversion pairs. If the semantic relations are typical of denominal verbs – verb is the derived member, but if they are typical of deverbal nouns – noun is the derived member (e.g. crowd – to crowd are perceived as those of ‘an object and an action characteristic of an object’ – the verb is the derived member).
5. According to the criterion of the frequency of occurrence a lower frequency value shows the derived character. (e.g. to answer (63%) – answer (35%) – the noun answer is the derived member).
6. The transformational criterion is based on the transformation of the predicative syntagma into a nominal syntagma (e.g. Mike visited his friends. – Mike’s visit to his friends. – then it is the noun that is derived member, but if we can’t transform the sentence, noun cannot be regarded as a derived member – Ann handed him a ball – XXX).
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 29
1. Word-formation: definition, basic peculiarities
According to Смирницкий word-formation is a system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic patterns. The main two types are: word-derivation and word-composition (compounding).
The basic ways of forming words in word-derivation are affixation and conversion (the formation of a new word by bringing a stem of this word into a different formal paradigm, e.g. a fall from to fall).
There exist other types: semantic word-building (homonymy, polysemy), sound and stress interchange (e.g. blood – bleed; increase), acronymy (e.g. NATO), blending (e.g. smog = smoke + fog) and shortening of words (e.g. lab, maths). But they are different in principle from derivation and compound because they show the result but not the process.
2. Specialized dictionaries
Phraseological dictionaries have accumulated vast collections of idiomatic or colloquial phrases, proverbs and other, usually image-bearing word-groups with profuse illustrations. (An Anglo-Russian Phraseological Dictionary by A. V. Koonin)
New Words dictionaries have it as their aim adequate reflection of the continuous growth of the English language. (Berg P. A Dictionary of New Words in English)
Dictionaries of slang contain vulgarisms, jargonisms, taboo words, curse-words, colloquialisms, etc. (Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English by E. Partridge)
Usage dictionaries pass judgement on usage problems of all kinds, on what is right or wrong. Designed for native speakers they supply much various information on such usage problems as, e.g., the difference in meaning between words (like comedy, farce and burlesque; formalityand formalism), the proper pronunciation of words, the plural forms of the nouns (e.g. flamingo), the meaning of foreign and archaic words. (Dictionary of Modern English Usage by N. W. Fowler.)
Dictionaries of word-frequency inform the user as to the frequency of occurrence of lexical units in speech (oral or written). (M. West’s General Service List.)
A Reverse dictionary (back-to-front dictionaries) is a list of words in which the entry words are arranged in alphabetical order starting with their final letters. (Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language).
Pronouncing dictionaries record contemporary pronunciation. They indicate variant pronunciations (which are numerous in some cases), as well as the pronunciation of different grammatical forms. (English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones)
Etymological dictionaries trace present-day words to the oldest forms available, establish their primary meanings and point out the immediate source of borrowing, its origin, and parallel forms in cognate languages. (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology edited by С. Т. Onions.)
Ideographic dictionaries designed for English-speaking writers, orators or translators seeking to express their ideas adequately contain words grouped by the concepts expressed. (Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases.)
Besides the most important and widely used types of English dictionaries discussed above there are some others, such as synonym-books, spelling reference books, hard-words dictionaries, etc.
ЭКЗАМЕНАЦИОННЫЙ БИЛЕТ № 30
1. Meaning in morphemes
A morpheme is the smallest indivisible two-facet (form and meaning) language unit which implies an association of a certain meaning and sound-form. Unlike words, morphemes cannot function independently (they occur in speech only as parts of words).
Morphemes have certain semantic peculiarities that distinguish them from words.- the don’t have grammatical meaning. Concrete lexical meaning is found mainly in root-morphemes (e.g. ‘friend” – friendship). Lexical meaning of affixes is generalized (e.g. -er – doer of an action; re- — repetition of some action).
Lexical meaning in morphemes may be analyzed into connotational and denotational components. The connotational aspect of meaning may be found in root-morphemes and affixational morphemes (e.g. diminutive meaning: booklet).
The part-of-speech meaning is characteristic only of affixal morphemes; moreover, some affixal morphemes are devoid of any part of meaning but part-of-speech meaning (e.g. –ment).
Morphemes possess specific meanings (of their own). There are: 1) deferential meaning and 2) distributional meaning.
Differential meaning is the semantic component that serves to distinguish one word from others containing identical morphemes (e.g. bookshelf, bookcase, bookhaunter).
Distributional meaning is the meaning of order and arrangement of morphemes that make up the word (e.g. heartless X lessheart).
Identical morphemes may have different sound-form (e.g. divide, divisible, division – the root morpheme is represented phonetically in different ways. They are called allomorphs or morpheme variant of one and the same morpheme.
2. Morphemic types of words
According to the number of morphemes words maybe classified into: monomorphic (root) words e.g. live, house) and polymorphic words that consist of more than one morpheme (merciless).
Polymorphic words are subdivided into:
1. Monoradical (one-root) words may be of 3 subtypes: a) radical-suffixal words (e.g. helpless), b) radical-prefixal words (e.g. mistrust), c) prefixo-radical-suffixal words (e.g. misunderstanding).
2. Polyradical (two or more roots) words fall into: a) root morphemes without affixes (e.g. bookcase) and b) root morphemes with suffixes (e.g. straw-colored).
|
3. Means of form-building in modern English. The grammatical meaning finds its expression in a grammatical form which is a means of |
5. Synthetic means of form-building in modern The grammatical meaning finds its expression in a grammatical form. There are several types of form-building in English. The main subdivision of |
|
4. The predicate as the main means of expressing The Predicate is |
6. Secondary parts of sentence. Difficulties of The theory of the |
|
7. Suffixation as a means of form-building in modern The grammatical meaning finds its expression in a grammatical form. There are several types of form-building in English. The main subdivision of |
8)Classific-n of subord. clauses: 2 (2) |
|
9. Language — is a means of · · · The grammatical system is Grammar- is the structure of The The Another approach to the
|
49. Cohesion as the main text Cohesion is the main property Cohesion is characterized by 1) 2) Text cohesion — — — — — |
|
50. Means of expressing gender in Modern English It’s doubtful Masculine (names of male Feminine (names of female Neuter (names of Gender may be expressed by a) b) From the point of view of There are also some a) b) c) d) All these arguments speak in favour of treating the category of gender in English |
51. The problem of homonymity in the system The category of Linguists differ Such a variety of |
|
53. Controversial problems of the part of speech classification: VERBALS The There Lexically The 1) 2) 3) |
52. Making a The theory of speech acts is SPEECH-ACT THEORY AND RHETORIC In
|
|
54. Modality. Means of The category of modality is The primary modality expresses the relation of the contents |
Secondary |
|
56. The problem of analytical forms in the system of English Moods Most analytical Some linguist But it should be Analytical forms 1) 2) 3) Some linguists (prof. Vorontsova) are of |
10. Syntax as part of Grammar. Main Units of English There’s a debate 1) 2) 3) Смирницкий: The analysis of the · · · Therefore, sent-s The fundamental Basic English When the noun and In most general A sentence may be defined as the basic unit of communication, grammatically Narrative analysis studies lexical & So, these Word-groups => |
|
12. Text grammar is a rather new Text is an ordered Those who studied the The main semantic — — — — Structural Cathegories: 1) — 2) — — 3) — 4) — 5) Polyphony — a good text usually has |
11. Correlation btw various means There The synthetic form-building means — — — Affixation is the most Sound interchange is a In suppletive forms there is a complete change of Analytical This This process can So we should conclude that |
|
13. It’s more productive in 1. The theory of the splitting of 2.Acc. to the second 3. Acc. to Бархударов a true analyt.form should posses a discontinuous morpheme |
14. Various classifications of sent-s. A sent. is a (I) (II) A sent. which If it contains one (III) Complete sent. contains — the subject + the predicate (if it’s a — the subject + the predicate + object 1-member sent. can Incomplete (elliptical) — — |
|
15. The general definition of a A part of speech is a mixed lexical-grammatical phenomenon, 1) Words are characterized by PS are distinguished from one Modern classification of parts of Classifying a lang. from the 1) 2) 3) 4) |
The existing principles: The semantic approach: (based on the The formal approach: Only form should They distinguished between The formal-semantic approach: 1. 2. 3. a) b) The syntactic (functional) |
|
17. A part of speech (PS) is a |
16. Main features of the 1) expresses predication => is called a 2) nominates a situation or a situational event => 3) can be called a communicative unit as it The problem of the composite sent.: how to define Semi-composite sent. How to Main features of the composite sentence: 1) a polypredicative Types of composite sentences: Acc. to the type The means of combining clauses: syndetic (союзн.) & asyndetic (бессоюзн.). Syndetic => conj-s, relative pron-s Classification of subord. (1) shows correlation of clauses with parts of the (2) correlates clauses with parts of speech & |
|
18. The word ‘syntax’ The type ‘noun+noun’ |
19. A part of speech (PS) is a The adv. is a PS characterized by the following features: 1) 2) 3) 4) The function of adverbial complement (дополнение), sometimes other functions |
|
20. The grammatical meaning, the gram form, the gram Gram meaning (GM) is The grammatical meaning finds its expression in a grammatical form which is a means of expressing a grammatical meaning. |
21. A part of speech (PS) is a The numeral as a part of 1) 2) the category of 3) 4) 5) |
|
22. The word ‘syntax’ WC – every combination of 2 |
23. Nouns are preceded by atr. though much has been written about art, the theory The art. have morph and |
|
24. The number of moods in Modern English. The grammatical category of mood has the reputation of being one of the most controversial categories. |
27. 3 stages can be distinguished in the 1st 2nd 3rd |
|
Билет 36 theoretical The article is a determiner |
29. The It’s a form of a noun showing The genitive case- is built up by The common case- this form is The method of 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) The number of cases in Modern |
|
Билет 38 Various Passive voice: accord. to a |
43) The category of tense – verbal cat, which The future tense form is The reasons the fut.tense is analytical: 1) 2) 3) Reasons shall/will + inf should be 1) 2) 3) 4) 2 groups of linguists: — there are 3 tense forms — there are 2 tense forms – the -are used chiefly in — do not easily fit into a — starting point isn’t in the — in many sentences the — what is certain is that it |
|
42) Classification Aspects of the sentence: — the structural aspect – — the semantic aspect – the — the actual aspect – — the pragmatic aspect – the Types of communication: declarative, interrogative, imperative (incl.emotional) and exclamatory Declarative – the subj precedes the verb Interrogative – aux.v in front of the subj.special w-order, very few modal words – modal w-s Semi-interrogative sent-s – “oh, you’ve seen him?” Imperative – no gram.subj, the v – in the imperative mood; modal words, The notion of exclamatory sent-s and their relation to the other 3 Eq. But he can’t do anything to you! What can he Purely exclamatory sentence: “Oh, for God’s sake, Henry!” The structure of a certain sent.may be used eq. Yes/No questions – You will speak to him? – Rhetorical questions – Is that the reason for despair? (of course not) |
44) The structural, semantic Aspects of the sentence: — the structural aspect – the form of the sentence, the way words are — the semantic aspect – the meaning of the sent. — the actual aspect – determines which part of the sent conveys the — the pragmatic aspect – the use of the sent.as Structural division: I.-simple -composite: compound and II. extended – unextended, IIIСomplete / incomplete Complete sent. contains — the subject + the predicate (if it’s a — the subject + the predicate + object 1-member sent. can Incomplete (elliptical) — — |
|
46) The imperative Mood – represented by one form The Imp.Mood expresses a command or a request to perform The Imp.mood The negative form is built by means of the aux. DO: Eq Don’t be a fool. Don’t worry. Emphatic requestscommands: eq. Do come and stay with us. Do be quiet. In commands and requests Eq. Let us go In negative sent-s the anal.forms take the The anal.forms Let us do smth Let him do it – the meaning The imp.mood |
47) The number of voices in The category of Voice Opposition: active Forms of Fut.Cont, Any other voices??? -> — the reflexive voice (eq.He dressed himself) – the agent and the object of the — the reciprocal voice (They — the middle voice (The door The active voice has a number Pr. Ilyish Pr. Barhudarov |
|
41) The category of ASPECT in modern English Aspect – a gram.category which characterizes the way in which the In Russian – 2 aspects: imperfective (несов.), perfective (сов.) Imperfective expresses an As the Eng.language grammarians of the past The majority of grammarians believe the Eng.verb · 1) 2) Most English verbs are polysemantic and may · 1) 2) The terms used to describe aspect are not stable (progressive — The difference bw the aspect forms isn’t The cont.aspect has a specific The common aspect shows the action Prof.Barhudarov: common aspect = Common aspect may denote: 1)a momentary action (eq she dropped the 2)a recurrent/repeated action (eq.I get up at 3)an action occupying a long period of time (eq.he 4)an action of unlimited duration (eq.The |
48) Functional sentence perspective — actual division of the sentence; The theory of the division into 2 units, in accordance with the Ian Firbas (Czech): the info known from the Michael Halliday: given (данное) — new(новое); Charles Pocket: topic (называние)- comment(толкование) In European languages – new info – at the end of the sentence The group of the subj.(together with attr-s) The most important piece of new info occupies the end position of the Eq. The girl told him everything ↑Theme Rheme But English has a strict word-order, it has special means of expressing the rhemes: · · ·
·
· ·
·
· There are other means of expressing the rheme,
|
|
26. Principal parts of the sentence. Their general characteristics. The subject and The subject is one of the 2 main parts 1) 2) It The predicate is one of the 2 main parts 1) 2) Types of predicate: Predicates may be Structural classification: 1. 2. Morphological 1. 2. |
Билет 34 Predicativity. Means of expressing. The main Predicativity is a category V.G.Gak points Predicativity |
|
*Functional words Here belong: · expresses the · expresses the · expresses · unites the · expresses the · is a signal of |
30. Notional words and function words in Modern English. Parts of speech are Functional parts of Ilyish => Some notional words denote functional words denote This view is shaky, because e.g. The The The match was called off because it was raining. (the conjunction because denotes the causal Some words belonging to a e.g. I have some I have found a dog. (have |
|
Билет 40. Classification of sentences based of their The structural aspect of the sentence deals with the structural According to their structure Though the difference between the complex and compound sentences is Besides there are |
Билет 39 Presents a specific linguistic Semantically the forms of the From the Singularia Tantum nouns, when used in the plural form, always The group of Pluralia Tantum nouns includes: 1. nouns |
|
Билет 37 THE CATEGORY OF MOOD The category of 2 groups of Moods — — The Indicative Mood is the There are 2 non-fact Moods in The Subjunctive Mood Some linguists think that the The classification |
Билет 35 The category of voice The category of voice (which is found both with finite Opposition: active Forms of Fut.Cont, Any other voices??? -> — the reflexive voice (eq.He dressed himself) – the agent and the object of the — the reciprocal voice (They — the middle voice (The door The active voice has a number Pr. Ilyish Pr. Barhudarov The idea of the Passive voice The existence of various |
|
31. Theories suggesting more Case can be defined in the Different 1. The 3-case theory / the substitutional theory. Was prompted by the fact that 2. The theory of positional cases. It is |
3. The theory of prepositional cases (Curme, also connected with the old school grammar 4. |
|
While the existence of the The time of the action can be |
32. The category of time-correlation. Various The gramm. category of phase or time-correlation built on Non-Perfect The 1) The perf. denotes a secondary temporal characteristic of an Thus, The The 2) Prof. 3) From the view This theory was favourably accepted by grammarians, but some of them said |
Добавил:
Upload
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:
Скачиваний:
3692
Добавлен:
18.03.2015
Размер:
6.03 Mб
Скачать
|
244 |
Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar |
. . — .:
, 2001. Francis W.N. The Structure of American English. — N.Y., 1958. — P. 268-
288.
Ilyish B. The Structure of Modern English. — L., 1971. — P. 58-65, 146-158.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A University Grammar of English. — M., 1982.
Seminar 9
SYNTAGMATIC
CONNECTIONS OF WORDS, SENTENCE: GENERAL
1.The basic units of syntax: the phrase and the sentence. Differential features of the phrase and of the sentence. The phrase in the hierarchy of language units.
2.The notion of collocation and its semantic status.
3.The traditional part of speech classification of phrases. Nominative classification of phrases. The problems of interpretation of predica tive phrases.
4.Agreement and government as two main types of syntactic relations.
5.Classification of word combinations in structuralism.
6.Adjoinment and enclosure as special means of expressing syntactic relations.
1. Basic Units of Syntax: Phrase and Sentence
Syntax treats phrases and sentences. Both syntactic units are studied in paradigmatic and syntagmatic syntax.
The phrase is the object of minor syntax. The phrase is usually understood as a combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of a word.
The sentence belongs to a different language level — the level lying above the phrasemic level. The sentence is the immediate integral unit
|
246 |
Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar |
of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connection of words having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.
The nominative meaning of the syntagmatically complete average sentence (an ordinary proposemic nomination) reflects a processual situation or event that includes a certain process (actional or statal) as its dynamic centre, the agent of the process, the objects of the process, and also the various conditions and circumstances of the realization of the process. This content of the proposemic event forms the basis of the traditional syntactic division of the sentence into its nominative parts.
The difference between the phrase and the sentence is fundamental: the phrase is a nominative unit which fulfils the function of polynomination denoting a complex referent (phenomenon of reality) analyzable into its component elements together with various relations between them; the sentence is a unit of predication which, naming a certain situational event, shows the relation of the denoted event towards reality. Taking into consideration the two-aspective character of the sentence as a meaningful unit of language, predication should be interpreted not simply as referring the content of the sentence to reality, but as referring the nominative content of the sentence to reality. It is this interpretation of the semantico-functional nature of predication that discloses, in one and the same generalized presentation, both the unity of the two identified aspects of the sentence, and also their different, though mutually complementary, meaningful roles. Hence, the sentence as a lingual unit performs not one, but two essential signemic (meaningful) functions: first, substance-naming, or nominative function; second, reality-evaluating, or predicative function.
Phonetically, the sentence is distinguished by a relevant intonation (intonation contour).
Intonation separates one sentence from another in the continual flow of uttered segments and, together with various segmental means of expression, participates in rendering essential communicative-pred- icative meanings (such as, e.g., the syntactic meaning of interrogation in distinction to the meaning of declaration).
|
Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
247 |
Within each sentence as an immediate speech element definite standard syntactico-semantic features are revealed which make up a typical model, a generalized pattern repeated in an indefinite number of actual utterances. This complicated predicative pattern does enter the system of language. It builds up its own level in the hierarchy of lingual segmental units in the capacity of a «linguistic sentence» and as such is studied by grammatical theory.
Between the sentence and the substantive word combination of the full nominative type, direct transformational relations are established: the sentence, interpreted as an element of paradigmatics, is transformed into the substantive phrase, or «nominalized», losing its processual-predicative character.
|
‘ ‘ |
U — .. . .. . |
|
|
2. Traditional Classification of Phrases |
‘ |
: |
Linguists discuss different classifications of phrases, all of them hav-‘ ing their own advantages. These classifications help reveal those aspects of phrases which are determined by the grammatical features of phrase constituents and by the syntactic functions of the phrase as a unit.
The traditional classification of phrases is based on the part of speech status of the phrase constituents. In accordance with this criterion, the following types of phrases can be identified: «noun + noun», «adjective + noun», «verb + noun», «verb + adverb», «adverb + adjective», «adverb + adverb», etc. Phrases are made up not only by notional words but also by functional words, e.g.: «in accordance with», «due to», «apart from», «as soon as» — such phrases perform in a sentence preposition-like and conjunction-like functions.
3.Agreement and Government as Two Main Types of Syntactic Relations
Syntactic relations of the phrase constituents are divided into two main types: agreement and government.
Agreement takes place when the subordinate word assumes a form similar to that of the word to which it is subordinate. In English agreement is typical only of the category of number in demonstrative pronouns.
Government takes place when the subordinate word is used in a certain form required by its head word, the form of the subordinate
: PRESSI ( HERSON )
word not coinciding with the form of the head word. The expression of government is the use of the objective case of personal pronouns and of the pronoun «who» when they are used in a verbal phrase or follow a preposition.
4. Nominative Classification of Phrases
Phrases can also be classified according to the nominative value of their constituents. As a result three major types of phrases are identified: notional (consisting of grammatically connected notional words), formative (made up by notional and functional words), and functional (consisting of functional words alone). Notional phrases are subdivided into two groups on the principle of the constituent rank: equipotent _phrases (the phrase constituents are of an equal rank) arid» dominaT tional phrases (the syntactic ranks of the constituents are not equaTas~ They refer to one another as the modifier and the modified). Further subdivision of equipotent notional word groupings into coordinative and cumulative is carried out on the principle of the character of nomination realized by the phrase constituents: coordinative p»Kfase»s»»are» based onjhe lg^kajly_cojnsecutive connections, cumulative phrases are characterized by the constituent inequality in the character of nomination realized and the presence ofacoordlnative conjunction. In their turn, dominational notional phrases are subdivided into consecutive and cumulative: the classification principle of the character of nomination realized by the phrase constituents remains valid. Dominational consecutive phrases fall into minor groupings according to the specific features of dominational connection.
5. Special Means of Syntactic Connection of Phrase Constituents
Agreement and government are considered to be the main types of expressing syntactic relations by phrase constituents. Yet, there exist some special means of expressing syntactic relations within a phrase, they are adjoinment and enclosure. Adjoinment is usually given a «negative» definition: it is described as absence both of agreement and of government, it is typical of the syntagma «adverb + head word».
If adjoinment is typical of Russian, enclosure is peculiar to Modern English. By enclosure some element is put between the two parts of another constituent of a phrase. One of the most widely used types
|
of Words. Sentence: General |
249 |
of enclosure in English is the enclosure of all kinds of attributes between the article (determiner) and its head-noun.
Questions:
1.What are the differential features of the phrase?
2.What are the differential features of the sentence?
3.What makes the sentence the main object of syntax?
4.What functions does the sentence perform?
5.In what way does the notion of nominative aspect of the sentence specify the notion of predication?
6.What are the strong points of the traditional classification of phrases?
7.What does agreement as a syntactic relation consist in?
8.What differentiates government from agreement?
9.What principles is the nominative classification of phrases based upon?
10.What syntactic relations of the phrase constituents does enclosure imply?
11.What type of syntagma is adjoinment typical of?
Nominative Classification of Phrases
|
Notional |
Formative I Functional |
|||
|
equipotent |
dominational |
|||
|
coordinative |
cumulative |
consecutive |
cumulative |
|
|
predicative completive |
||||
|
completive semi-predicative |
objective |
|
|
predicative |
||
|
direct indirect |
I.Define the properties of word-groupings on the lines of different classifications.
MODEL: «a self-reliant student»
qualifying
. S ^ attributive adverbial
It is a notional, dominational, consecutive, completive monolateral, qualifying attributive phrase. It comprises an article, an adjective, and a noun.
|
1. |
to fully understand |
a) |
||
|
4. |
claimed |
|||
|
2. |
is seriously ill |
|||
|
the land |
||||
|
3. for us to expect |
||||
|
5. |
young, |
|||
nonchalant, charming 6. a cat licking milk
7.the «I’m sorry» response rather doubtful
1.the train moved
2.can come, supposedly
3.cakes and ale
4.a stifling weather
5.projected onto the token
1.the world beyond
2.really amazing
3.laughed a little
4.familiar noise
5.to feel foolish
1.had definitely been
2.a summer wedding
3.came in to ask
4.the butcher and the grocer
5.might correspond
6.eavesdropping, ingenuity, or anything else
9. think of an idea 10. happy but not quite
b)
6.in spite of
7.a man, having no scruples
8.pleased, or almost so
9.enthusiastic but not cultured 10. ought to give up
c)
6.sanity and rationality
7.almost insignificant
8.extremely tempting
9.eggs and cheese
10. delivered for a friend
d)
7.time-tables, books, maps, and what not
8.a flowery hat
9.kicking off the shoes
10. a wedding or a christening
II.Account for the peculiarity of the following sentences.
1.You might write to Miss What’s-her-name and say we’re corning (Christie).
2.It’s the «Save Mrs. Lancaster» that I’m going to be busy with (Christie).
3.He felt much less vulnerable in jeans and a MEET ME IN FAIR VIEW T-shirt… (King).
4.The idea that such off-the-wall-things as gypsy curses exist at all… is anathema to everything Michael Houston has ever believed in (King).
5.This last was in a lower I’m-talking-to-myself voice, and was followed by a thump as Ginelli threw his shoulder against the door (King).
6.Thinner, just that one word, but it was malediction enough, Halleck saw, because everyone in this affluent upper-class-commute-to-the-city-and- have-a-few-drinks-in-the-club-car-on-the-way-home suburb, everyone in this pretty little new England town set squarely in the heart of John Cheever country, everyone in Fairview was starving to death (King).
|
Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
251 |
Selected Reader
1.
Palmer F.R. Semantics. A
New Outline
Collocation
It was Firth who argued that «You shall know a word by the company it keeps». His familiar example was that of ass which occurred (in a now defunct variety of English) in You silly -, Don’t be such an — and with a limited set of adjectives such as silly, obstinate, stupid, awful and (occasionally!) egregious. But for Firth this keeping company, which he called COLLOCATION, was merely PART of the meaning of a word. As we have seen, meaning was also to be found in the context of situation and all the other levels of analysis as well. Moreover, he was concerned not with total distribution, but with the more obvious and more interesting co-occurrences, the «mutual expectancy of words», as he put it. We may see here that his collocation differed from the distributional analysis of Harris and others in much the same way as his context of situation differed from the behaviourist approaches. For Firth was concerned only with selecting those characteristics of the linguistic or non-linguistic context that he considered relevant, not with the totality of such contexts. The study of linguistic context is of interest to semantics for two reasons.
First, by looking at the linguistic contexts of words we can often distinguish between different meanings. Nida, for instance, discussed the use of chair in:
(1)sat in a chair
(2)the baby’s high chair
(3)the chair of philosophy
(4)has accepted a University chair
(5)the chairman of the meeting
(6)will chair the meeting
: PRESSI ( HERSON )
|
252 |
Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar |
(7)the electric chair
(8)condemned to the chair
These are clearly in pairs, giving four different meanings of the word. But this does not so much establish, as illustrates, differences of meaning. Dictionaries, especially the larger ones, quite rightly make considerable use of this kind of contextualisation.
Secondly, although in general the distribution of words may seem to be determined by their meaning (rather than vice versa) in some cases, this is not entirely true. We have already briefly noted that rancid occurs with bacon and butter, and addled with brains and eggs, in spite of the fact that English has the terms rotten and bad and that milk is never rancid but only sour. We shall see that pretty child and buxom neighbour would normally refer to females; here it is relevant to point out that we should not normally say pretty boy or buxom man, though pretty girl and buxom woman are quite normal. This characteristic of language is found in an extreme form in the collective words -flock of sheep, herd of cows, school of whales, pride of lions, and the rather more absurd examples such as chattering of magpies, exaltation of larks.
It is also the case that words may have more specific meanings in particular collocations. Thus we can speak of abnormal or exceptional weather if we have a heat wave in November, but an exceptional child is not an abnormal child, exceptional being used for greater than usual ability and abnormal to relate to some kind of defect (though, oddly, for «euphemistic» reasons, exceptional is now being used by some people, especially in America, in place of abnormal).
It would, however, be a mistake to attempt to draw a clear distinguishing line between those collocations that are predictable from the meanings of the words that co-occur and those that are not (though some linguists have wished to restrict the term collocation to the latter). There have been some extensive investigations of collocation within texts and the results suggest that the co-occurrences are determined both by the meaning of the individual words and (though to a much lesser extent) by conventions about «the company they keep». For this reason, we cannot restrict the term in any precise way, though this does not necessarily preclude us from following Firth and investigating only those collocations that we feel to be interesting.
|
Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
253 |
In spite of what has been said, it has been argued that ALL collocations are determined by the meaning of the words, though this point of view seems rather perverse. Thus it might be said that pretty means handsome in a female (or feminine) way, and that for this reason we can say a pretty child to mean «a pretty girl» and not «a handsome boy». This is a little implausible and it is even less plausible to say that rancid means «rotten in a butter-like or bacon-like way» or that addled means «rotten in the way that brains or eggs can be». For there are no obvious qualities of being rancid or addled that distinguish them from any other kind of rottenness. To say «rotten (of butter)», «rotten (of eggs)» ‘is not then establishing a specific meaning for rancid or addled; it is merely indicating that these are the words to refer to rottenness when used with butter and eggs. The same point is even more obvious with the collective words. There is no meaning distinction between herd and flock, except that one is used with cows and the other with sheep. Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that a word will often collocate with a number of other words that have something in common semantically. More strikingly (for negative examples often make the point more clearly), we find that individual words or sequences of words will NOT collocate with certain groups of words. Thus, though we may say The rhododendron died, we shall not say The rhododendron passed away, in spite of the fact that pass away seems to mean «die». But equally, of course, we should not use pass away with the names of any shrubs, not even with a shrub whose name we had heard for the first time. It is not very plausible to say that pass away indicates a special kind of dying that is not characteristic of shrubs. It is rather that there is a restriction on its use with a group of words that are semantically related. The restrictions are, it has been suggested (by A. Mclntosh), a matter of RANGE — we know roughly the kind of nouns (in terms of their meaning) with which a verb or adjective may be used. So we do not reject specific collocations simply because we have never heard them before — we rely on our knowledge of the range.
We can, perhaps, see three kinds of collocational restriction. First, some are based wholly on the meaning of the item as in the unlikely green cow. Secondly, some are based on range — a word may be used with a whole set of words that have some semantic features in com-
|
254 |
Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar |
mon. This accounts for the unlikeliness of The rhododendron passed away and equally of the pretty boy (pretty being used with words denoting females). Thirdly, some restrictions are collocational in the strictest sense, involving neither meaning nor range, as addled with eggs and brains. There may, of course, be borderline cases. It might be thought that rancid may be used with animal products of a certain type — perhaps butter and bacon have something in common. But why not rancid cheese or rancid milk?
Idioms
Idioms involve collocation of a special kind. Consider, for instance, kick the bucket, fly off the handle, spill the beans, red herring.
For here we not only have the collocation of kick and the bucket, but also the fact that the meaning of the resultant combination is opaque — it is not related to the meaning of the individual words, but is sometimes (though not always) nearer to the meaning of a single word (thus kick the bucket equals die).
Even where an idiom is semantically like a single word it does not function like one. Thus we will not have a past tense *kick-the~buck- eted. Instead, it functions to some degree as a normal sequence of grammatical words, so that the past tense form is kicked the bucket. But there are a great number of grammatical restrictions. A large number of idioms contain a verb and a noun, but although the verb may be placed in the past tense, the number of the noun can never be changed. We have spilled the beans, but not *spill the bean and equally there is no *fly off the handles, *kick the buckets, *put on good faces, *blow one’s tops, etc. Similarly, with red herring the noun may be plural, but the adjective cannot be comparative (the -er form). Thus we find red herring but not *redder herring.
There are also plenty of syntactic restrictions. Some idioms have passives, but others do not. The law was laid down and The beans have been spilled are all right (though some may question the latter), but *The bucket was kicked is not. But in no case could we say It was the — (beans that were spilled, law that was laid down, bucket that was kicked, etc.). The restrictions vary from idiom to idiom. Some are more restricted or «frozen» than others.
|
Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
255 |
A very common type of idiom in English is what is usually called the «phrasal verb», the combination of verb plus adverb of the kind make up, give in, put down. The meaning of these combinations cannot be predicted from the individual verb and adverb and in many cases there is a single verb with the same or a very close meaning — invent, yield, quell. Not all combinations of this kind are idiomatic, of course. Put down has a literal sense too and there are many others that are both idiomatic and not, e.g. take in as in The conjuror took the audience in. The woman took the homeless children in. There are even degrees of idiomaticity since one can make up a story, make up a fire or make up one’s face. Moreover, it is not only sequences of verb plus adverb that may be idiomatic. There are also sequences of verb plus preposition, such as look after and go for, and sequences of verb, adverb and preposition, such as put up with («tolerate») or do away with («kill»).
There are also what we may call partial idioms, where one of the words has its usual meaning, the other has a meaning that is peculiar to the particular sequence. Thus red hair refers to hair, but not hair that is red in strict colour terms. Comedians have fun with partial idioms of this kind, e.g. when instructed to make a bed they bring out a set of carpenter’s tools. An interesting set involves the word white, for white coffee is brown in colour, white wine is usually yellow, and white people are pink. Yet white is, perhaps, idiomatic only to some degree -it could be interpreted «the lightest in colour of that usually to be found». Not surprisingly black is used as its antonym for coffee and people (though again neither are black in colour terms), yet it is not used for wine. Thus it can be seen that even partial idiomaticity can be a matter of degree and may in some cases be little more than a matter of collocational restriction. On a more comic level there is partial idiomaticity in raining cats and dogs (in Welsh it rains old women and sticks!).
What is and what is not an idiom is, then, often a matter of degree. It is very difficult, moreover, to decide whether a word or a sequence of words is opaque. We could, perhaps, define idioms in terms of nonequivalence in other languages, so that kick the bucket, red herring, etc., are idioms because they cannot be directly translated into French or German. But this will not really work. The French for nurse isgardemalade, but while this cannot be directly translated into English it is quite transparent, obviously meaning someone who looks after the sick.
: PRESSI ( HERSON )
|
256 |
Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar |
On the other hand, look after seems quite idiomatic, yet it can be quite directly translated into Welsh (edrych ar 61).
Firth saw collocation as just one of his levels or statements of meaning. Others have attempted to integrate it more closely to the other levels of linguistic analysis, to argue, for instance, that it may be handled within the level of lexis, which is related in a fairly direct and, in theory, precise way to grammar.
(pp. 94-100)
Questions:
1.What proves that collocation and the semantics of the word are closely connected?
2.What types of collocation are distinguished in linguistics? Is it possible to draw a clear-cut borderline between the two types of collocation?
3.What determines the collocation of the word?
4.What types of idioms are recognized in English? What are their specific features?
2.
Burchfield R. The
English Language
The Syntactic Arrangement of Words
// was an effort to think I might have had a good brush with you and did not. No grammar in that sentence. No cohesion in my mind.
Virginia Woolf to Ethel Smyth, 4 September 1936, in Letters F/(1980), p. 70.
The grammatical arrangement of words in speech or writing to show their connection and relation; a set of rules governing this relationship; an analysis of such rules. This slightly adapted definition of syntax (from Greek syn «together» and taxis «an arranging») in the
|
Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
257 |
current (seventh) edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary will serve as an introduction to a notoriously difficult subject. Educated speakers of English can string together sentences in both spoken and written form without having an explicit book of rules at hand. By contrast numerical problems of comparable complication cannot be solved without the aid of a pocket calculator, log tables, or some much more complicated devices. Somehow categories of words — nouns, verbs, pronouns, etc. — become established as distinguishable entities in our minds at an early age, and also the means of cementing them together in an acceptable orderly sequence. We also learn that some of them have a fixed and unchanging form (but, with, sheep) but that the vast majority is malleable, however slightly, by inflexional additions or other modifications (hat/hats, bird/bird’s/birds’, goose/geese) and must be altered in such ways to meet the needs of a given context.
This chapter will be concerned with the morphological elements and grammatical rules within which speakers and writers feel that they can proceed without error or ambiguity. I shall also attempt to show how the «rules» and «feelings» change over the centuries, with legacies of varying degrees of acceptability for very long periods.
When I was at school I was taught that a sentence (which itself needed no explanation) consisted of a subject and a predicate. The subject was obvious (The cow) and the predicate was the rest (jumped over the moon). More advanced grammar had to do with the way in which subordinate clauses were attached to main clauses, and what they were called — noun clauses, adverbial clauses, and so on. I was also taught that there were certain hazards to avoid — split infinitives, confusion of may and might, prepositions at the end of sentences, and so on — and marks were awarded in the matriculation (roughly 0-level) examinations to those who could spot such errors in sentences specially constructed for the purpose. From time to time, my teachers would murmur, «just as in Latin» (no one ever said «just as in Greek» as no one knew any Greek at my school). English appeared to be a language with minimum inflexions but with inflexions nevertheless — closer, that is, to Latin and its European descendants than to certain nameless languages (doubtless they meant Chinese among others) which appeared to fit words together without a connecting array of inflexions. When a sentence did not seem to be a complete
17 — 3548 .
|
258 |
Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar |
sentence, something called
«ellipsis» was brought in to account for the missing element.
This comfortable, and sometimes irritatingly imprecise, method of analysis has a long history and has been beneficial to millions of English students throughout the world over many generations. It has by no means died out.
It is well illustrated, I discovered much later, in C.T. Onions’s An Advanced English Syntax (1904 and later slightly corrected editions). Five types of predicate were identified and presented in the following manner:
First
Predicate
dawns is
Subject Day come My hour
Croesus Many
Cats Many hands
We
I
Nothing
People
Second was rich or a king
lay dead
Third catch mice make light work
Fourth taught the dog tricks ask you this question
Fifth makes a Stoic angry called Duns Scotm the Subtle Doctor
predicate contains a verb
predicate contains a verb and a noun or adjective
predicate contains a verb and an object
predicate contains a verb and two objects
predicate contains a verb, an object, and an adjective or noun
The whole
point of analysis was to apportion the right label to the constituent parts of simple sentences like «I stood on the bridge at midnight», or of complex sentences like
I had a strong hope, which never left me, that I should one day recover my liberty; and, as to the ignominy of being carried about for a monster, I considered myself to be a perfect stranger in the country, and that such a misfortune should never be charged upon me as a reproach if ever I should return to England; since the King of England
|
Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
259 |
himself, in my condition, must have undergone the same distress (Jonathan Swift).
Dr Onions analyzed this passage on pp. 26-7 of his book (6th edn., 1932).
Other grammatical notions came into it, of course. «A wild beast fed him» is an active expression. «He was fed by a wild beast» is its passive equivalent. Many verbs govern an infinitive preceded by to (I expect to arrive tomorrow); others proceed without to (I can drive a car, I may come tomorrow). Some, like dare and need, hover between the two uses (He dare not speak / Does he dare to say so? He need not iknow / The clothes need to be dried).
A range of sentences forming statements, commands, questions, and exclamations cause us to draw on a more sophisticated battery of orderings and arrangements. It is a long way from the simplicity of «I am happy» (a statement) to «May I never see his face again!» (a wish in the form of a request); from «Are you ready?» (a simple question) to «What mean these torn and faded garments?» (a more complex question); and from «Alas! Alack!» (an exclamation) to «Oh, what a fall was there, my countrymen!» (a more complex exclamation).
Temporal clauses (When it is fine, I go for a walk), local clauses (The house stood where three roads met), causal clauses (Since you insist on it, I will consider the matter), concessive clauses (Although you are rich, you are not happy), absolute clauses (The signal being given, we set off), relative clauses (This is the house that Jack built), and many other types of clause seemed to account for the sentences that appeared in the books we read and the sentences we used in the English we spoke. In broad terms they still do.
Case-endings in English, set against the traditional array of those in Latin and Greek (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, and instrumental) are extremely simple. Only two can be clearly distinguished — the possessive (man’s, men’s, ladles’) and an unchanged form in all other cases (He met the man; he went up to the man, etc.). Old English had four case-forms (nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative), and occasional examples of a fifth, the instrumental. Most of these cases had distinctive endings in the various classes of nouns. It is obvious that the system in present-day English is radically different, and that the notion of case (i.e. a form or mod-
17*
: PRESSI ( HERSON )
260 Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar
ification of a declinable word) is now of very little significance. The survival of the objective case in English pronouns (me, him, her, us, them, whom), however, causes many difficulties, as in the notorious type ^between you and I (correctly me).
In such traditional grammar the notion of possessiveness (that is, the genitive case in Old English, Latin, etc.) is conveyed by an apos trophe or by of. The apostrophe is used in various types of construction:
|
The doctor’s house |
(simple attributive) |
|
This house is the doctor’s |
(predicative) |
|
My father’s brother’s daughter |
(double possessive) The Emperor of |
Germany’s mother (group genitive) Of is used where fully inflected languages would use a partitive genitive (This is an old book of my mother’s; of all men the most accomplished), an objective genitive (love of God; their fear of the enemy was great (that is, they feared the enemy greatly)), a genitive of description (a man of great honesty), and an appositive genitive (the continent of Africa). The apostrophe and o/are sometimes in-^ter-changeable (e.g. the sun’s rays or the rays of the sun).
Traditional grammar places great stress on prepositions and the positioning of them in a sentence; on tenses of verbs and tense-equiv- alents, including the complications of the continuous tenses (he is writing the book all over again; we shall be going home tomorrow); the subjunctive mood; the infinitive (including the split infinitive, to continually refer); impersonal verbs (verbs with a vague subject «it», it is raining, it is time to go home); anomalous verbs like shall/will, should/would, can/could, may/might, dare, need, must, and so on; and many other matters.
Traditional grammar was largely unchallenged before the 1960s. It was nurtured and supported by generations of teachers at schools and universities. And it neatly dovetailed in with the nomenclature used for the teaching of ancient languages like Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, and of modern European languages.
Revolutionary new methods of parsing, most of them synchronic (or descriptive), that is without any reference to older forms of English, have swept into prominence in the last twenty years or so. The messianic figure was Noam Chomsky and the starting-point his book Syntactic Structures (1957). He sought a simple linguistic theory which
—
|
Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
261 |
would «generate all the sequences of morphemes (or words) that constitute grammatical English sentences» (p. 18). For him a «constituent analysis» of the sentence The man hit the ball would require (and I quote from Chomsky): 1.
(i)Sentence -» NP + VP2
(ii)NP->T + N3
(iii)VP -> Verb + NP
(iv)-»the
(v)N -» man, ball, etc.
, (vi) Verb -» hit, took, etc.
In each case -> represents the word «rewrite», and each statement in (i) to (vi) is an instruction of the type «rewrite X as Y». The following series (2) shows what happens to the sentence The man hit the ball if it is rewritten in terms of the «grammar» (1) given above: 2.
|
NP + VP |
(i) |
|
+ N + VP |
(ii) |
|
+ N + Verb + NP |
(iii) |
|
the + N + Verb + NP |
(iv) |
|
the + man + Verb + NP |
(v) |
|
the + man + hit + NP |
(vi) |
|
the + man + hit + + N |
(ii) |
|
the + man + hit + the + N |
(iv) |
|
the + man + hit + the + ball |
(v) |
This derivation, as Chomsky called it, can be represented in a diagram:
|
man |
hit |
the |
ball |
Sentence
From such elementary rules and diagrams has emerged a school of grammar that has shaken the foundations of traditional grammar. In its developed form it has been taken up by scholars of foreign languages. It has also been applied as a technique to older forms of English, and older forms of other languages. Transformation is one of its techniques: the apparent grammatical identity of the sentences
She made him a good husband She made him a good wife She made him a good dinner
is removed when algebraic symbols are assigned to their parts and tree-diagrams of the type shown above are provided for each of them. Its weakness is that it depends on intuition about grammatical acceptability. But a more fundamental weakness lies in its failure to produce a grammar of English that can be consulted … as an aid to the disentangling and ascertainment of the language that lies about us. Despotic professors of linguistics vying with one another about the nature of grammatical embeddedness and «disambiguating» sentences by contrastive methods have failed to notice that they have taken the subject beyond the reach of intelligent laymen.
The parts and parcels of speech can be understood, rather grimly and with pedantic pleasure, from Onions, Fowler, and the great historical grammarians like Poutsma and Visser. The syntactical arrangements of English can be made to stand out very clearly, but only like dead flowers in a dry landscape, by nonsense sentences of a type invented by Chomsky («Colourless green ideas sleep furiously»). The differences between acceptable constructions like «Have you a book on modern music?» and unacceptable ones like «Read you a book on modern music?» need no Chomskyan signposts for a native speaker, and have very little to do with statistical probability but a lot to do with common sense. Anyone knows that have, as an anomalous verb, is likely to behave differently from read.
Much ground has been lost and many fine minds blunted on the complications of transformational generative grammar. But traditional approaches to grammar have been successfully developed in a synchronic (or descriptive) form, that is with historical elements stripped away, and yet not partial or negative or idiosyncratic, by Randolph Quirk and colleagues in A Grammar of Contemporary English (1972).
|
| Seminar 9. Syntagmatic Connections of Words. Sentence: General |
263 |
Subject and predicate come sailing back into view. SVO (= subject/verb/object) and SOV (= subject/object/verb) stand as lighthouses to those adrift in the stormy sea of grammar. The acceptability of some adverbs in some contexts is brought out:
|
carefully |
||
|
slowly |
||
|
John searched the room noisily |
||
|
sternly |
||
|
without delay |
||
|
but not when the verb is stative: *carefully |
||
|
The girl is now a student.. |
*slowly |
|
|
She saw this… |
*noisily |
*sternly |
|
John knew the answer… |
^without delay |
The tree-diagrams present a pleasant and intelligible face, for example:
: PRESSI ( HERSON )
Соседние файлы в папке Теорграмматика
- #
18.03.201516.06 Mб72haymovich(2).pdf
- #
- #
- #