The word sound in different languages

SOUND
INTERCHANGE

Sound interchange is the way of
word-building when some sounds are changed to form a new word. It is
non-productive in Modern English, it was productive in Old English
and can be met in other Indo-European languages.

The causes of sound interchange
can be different. It can be the result of Ancient Ablaut which cannot
be explained by the phonetic laws during the period of the language
development known to scientists., e.g. to strike — stroke, to sing —
song etc. It can be also the result of Ancient Umlaut or vowel
mutation which is the result of palatalizing the root vowel because
of the front vowel in the syllable coming after the root ( regressive
assimilation), e.g. hot — to heat (hotian), blood — to bleed
(blodian) etc.

In many cases we have vowel and
consonant interchange. In nouns we have voiceless consonants and in
verbs we have corresponding voiced consonants because in Old English
these consonants in nouns were at the end of the word and in verbs in
the intervocal position, e.g. bath — to bathe, life — to live, breath
— to breathe etc.

STRESS
INTERCHANGE

Stress interchange can be
mostly met in verbs and nouns of Romanic origin : nouns have the
stress on the first syllable and verbs on the last syllable, e.g.
`accent — to ac`cent. This phenomenon is explained in the following
way: French verbs and nouns had different structure when they were
borrowed into English, verbs had one syllable more than the
corresponding nouns. When these borrowings were assimilated in
English the stress in them was shifted to the previous syllable (the
second from the end) . Later on the last unstressed syllable in verbs
borrowed from French was dropped (the same as in native verbs) and
after that the stress in verbs was on the last syllable while in
nouns it was on the first syllable. As a result of it we have such
pairs in English as : to af`fix -`affix, to con`flict- `conflict, to
ex`port -`export, to ex`tract — `extract etc. As a result of stress
interchange we have also vowel interchange in such words because
vowels are pronounced differently in stressed and unstressed
positions.

SOUND
IMITATION

It is the way of word-building
when a word is formed by imitating different sounds. There are some
semantic groups of words formed by means of sound imitation

a) sounds produced by human
beings, such as : to whisper, to giggle, to mumble, to sneeze, to
whistle etc.

b) sounds produced by animals,
birds, insects, such as : to hiss, to buzz, to bark, to moo, to
twitter etc.

c) sounds produced by nature
and objects, such as : to splash, to rustle, to clatter, to bubble,
to ding-dong, to tinkle etc.

The corresponding nouns are
formed by means of conversion, e.g. clang (of a bell), chatter (of
children) etc.

BLENDS

Blends are words formed from a
word-group or two synonyms. In blends two ways of word-building are
combined : abbreviation and composition. To form a blend we clip the
end of the first component (apocope) and the beginning of the second
component (apheresis) . As a result we have a compound- shortened
word. One of the first blends in English was the word «smog» from
two synonyms : smoke and fog which means smoke mixed with fog. From
the first component the beginning is taken, from the second one the
end, «o» is common for both of them.

Blends formed from two synonyms
are: slanguange, to hustle, gasohol etc. Mostly blends are formed
from a word-group, such as : acromania (acronym mania), cinemadict
(cinema adict), chunnel (channel, canal), dramedy (drama comedy),
detectifiction (detective fiction), faction (fact fiction) (fiction
based on real facts), informecial (information commercial) , Medicare
( medical care) , magalog ( magazine catalogue) slimnastics
(slimming gymnastics), sociolite (social elite), slanguist ( slang
linguist) etc.

BACK
FORMATION

It is the way of word-building
when a word is formed by dropping the final morpheme to form a new
word. It is opposite to suffixation, that is why it is called back
formation. At first it appeared in the languauge as a result of
misunderstanding the structure of a borrowed word . Prof. Yartseva
explains this mistake by the influence of the whole system of the
language on separate words. E.g. it is typical of English to form
nouns denoting the agent of the action by adding the suffix -er to a
verb stem (speak- speaker). So when the French word «beggar» was
borrowed into English the final syllable «ar» was pronounced in the
same way as the English -er and Englishmen formed the verb «to beg»
by dropping the end of the noun. Other examples of back formation
are : to accreditate (from accreditation), to bach (from bachelor),
to collocate (from collocation), to enthuse (from enthusiasm), to
compute (from computer), to emote (from emotion) to reminisce ( from
reminiscence) , to televise (from television) etc.

As we can
notice in cases of back formation the part-of-speech meaning of the
primary word is changed, verbs are formed from nouns. Reduplication
is a morphological
process by which the root
or stem
of a word,
or part of it, is repeated.
Reduplication is
used in inflections
to convey a grammatical function, such as plurality, intensification,
etc., and in lexical
derivation
to create new words. It is often used when a speaker adopts a tone
more «expressive» or figurative than ordinary speech and is
also often, but not exclusively, iconic
in meaning.
There
are various categories of this: rhyming, exact and ablaut (vowel
substitution). Examples, are respectively, harum-scarum
hocus-pocus,
wee-wee
blah-blah bye-bye
and zig-zag
ping-pong tip-top.Back-formations
and blends. Back-formation
(also
called reversion) is a term borrowed from
diachronic linguistics. It denotes the derivation of new words by
subtracting a real or supposed affix from existing words through
misinterpretation of their structure. Blends
are words formed from a word-group or two synonyms. In blends two
ways of word-building are combined : abbreviation and composition.
Back-formations
and blends are becoming increasingly popular. Back-formation is
reverse of affixation, being analogical creation of new word from
existing word falsely assumed to be its derivative. Ex., verb “to
edit” been formed from noun “editor” and similarly verbs
automate, escalate are backformed from nouns automation, escalation.

Blends fall
into 2 groups: (1) coalescences, such as “bash” from “bang”
and “smash” and (2) telescoped forms, such as “motorcade”
from “motor cavalcade.” In 1st group are words clash, from clack
and crash. To 2nd group belong dormobiles, or dormitory automobiles.
Simple shortenings, such as “ad” for “advertisement,” have
risen in status. They are listed in dictionaries side by side with
their full forms. Among such fashionable abbreviations are exam, gym,
lab, lib, tech. Onomatopoeia
is a deliberate use of words or combinations of words whose sounds
produce an imitation of a natural sound, such
as animal noises like «oink» or «meow», or
suggesting its source object, such as «boom», «zoom»,
«click», «bunk», «clang», «buzz»,
or «bang».
It is often based on and combined with alliteration

23
Criteria
of distinguishing polisemantic and homonyms words.
1. Etymological
and semantic.
Diachronically all cases of sound convergence may be regarded as
cases of homonymy and can be traces back to two etymologically
different words. The cases of semantic divergence are more doubtful
(flower-flour). Synchronically this differentiation may be mainly
based on the semantic criteria. This the difference between policemy
and homonymy is actually reduced to differentiation between related
and unrelated meanings. 2. Formal
criteria of distribution and spelling.
F.e. lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonyms: paper- to
paper.Paper as noun may be proceeded by an article an interesting
paper and followed by the verb (a paper ro read). To paper is only
followed by an object (to paper a wall)/ The criteria of spelling can
be illustrated by lexical homonyms: night-knight, right-write.
Policemy
and Hononymy. Homonyms
are words, identical in sound form but different in meaning.
According to the graphic and sound form homonyms are classified into
3 groups: 1. Homographs
– word identical in spelling but different in sound form and
meaning: bow (лук) – bow (кланяться). 2. Homophones
– words identical in sound form but different in spelling and
meaning: sea-see, son-sun. 3. Perfect
homonyms
– words identical both in sound form and spelling but different in
meaning: case (случай)-case (box, container). According to the
grammatical structure they fall into full
homonyms,
the same part of speech: case-case, and partial
homonyms,
belonging to the different parts of speech: seal (тюлень),
seal (запечатывать). By the type of meaning they can be
classified into lexical
(seal – тюлень, печать), lexico-grammatical
(seal –тюлень-noun, seal-запечатывать;
brother-brothers).

Sources
of homonymy:
1. Diverging
meaning development
of a policemantie words: flower-flour (мука) – originally were
the same word. Different meanings of these word diverged or moved so
far away from each other that now they are regarded as two different
words. 2. Converging
(схождение) sound development
of two or more words. This is the most powerful factor in the
creation of homonums. F.e. race (гонка,
раса).
Words borrowed from other languages may become homonyms in such a
way.

Criteria
of distinguishing polisemantic and homonyms words.
1. Etymological
and semantic.
Diachronically all cases of sound convergence may be regarded as
cases of homonymy and can be traces back to two etymologically
different words. The cases of semantic divergence are more doubtful
(flower-flour). Synchronically this differentiation may be mainly
based on the semantic criteria. This the difference between policemy
and homonymy is actually reduced to differentiation between related
and unrelated meanings. 2. Formal
criteria of distribution and spelling.
F.e. lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonyms: paper- to
paper.Paper as noun may be proceeded by an article an interesting
paper and followed by the verb (a paper ro read). To paper is only
followed by an object (to paper a wall). The criteria of spelling can
be illustrated by lexical homonyms: night-knight, right-write.

Homonyms are words different in
meaning but identical in sound or spelling, or both in sound and
spelling.

Homonyms can appear in the
language not only as the result of the split of polysemy, but also as
the result of levelling of grammar inflexions, when different parts
of speech become identical in their outer aspect, e.g. «care» from
«caru» and «care» from «carian». They can be also formed by
means of conversion, e.g. «to slim» from «slim», «to water»
from «water». They can be formed with the help of the same suffix
from the same stem, e.g. «reader»/ a person who reads and a book
for reading/.

Homonyms can also appear in the
language accidentally, when two words coincide in their development,
e.g. two native words can coincide in their outer aspects: «to bear»
from «beran»/to carry/ and «bear» from «bera»/an animal/. A
native word and a borrowing can coincide in their outer aspects, e.g.
«fair» from Latin «feria» and «fair « from native «fager»
/blond/. Two borrowings can coincide e.g. «base» from the French
«base» /Latin basis/ and «base» /low/ from the Latin «bas»
/Italian «basso»/.

Homonyms can develop through
shortening of different words, e.g. «cab» from «cabriolet»,
«cabbage», «cabin».

Classifications of
homonyms.

Walter Skeat
classified homonyms according to their spelling and sound forms and
he pointed out three groups: perfect homonyms that is words identical
in sound and spelling, such as : «school» — «косяк
рыбы»
and «школа»
; homographs, that is words with the same spelling but pronounced
differently, e.g. «bow» -/bau/ — «поклон»
and /bou/ — «лук»;
homophones that is words pronounced identically but spelled
differently, e.g. «night» — «ночь»
and «knight» — «рыцарь».

Another
classification was suggested by A.I Smirnitsky. He added to Skeat’s
classification one more criterion: grammatical meaning. He subdivided
the group of perfect homonyms in Skeat’s classification into two
types of homonyms: perfect which are identical in their spelling,
pronunciation and their grammar form, such as :»spring» in the
meanings: the season of the year, a leap, a source, and homoforms
which coincide in their spelling and pronunciation but have different
grammatical meaning, e.g. «reading» — Present Participle, Gerund,
Verbal noun., to lobby — lobby .

A more detailed classification
was given by I.V. Arnold. She classified only perfect homonyms and
suggested four criteria of their classification: lexical meaning,
grammatical meaning, basic forms and paradigms.

According to these criteria
I.V. Arnold pointed out the following groups: a) homonyms identical
in their grammatical meanings, basic forms and paradigms and
different in their lexical meanings, e.g. «board» in the meanings
«a council» and « a piece of wood sawn thin»; b) homonyms
identical in their grammatical meanings and basic forms, different in
their lexical meanings and paradigms, e.g. to lie — lied — lied, and
to lie — lay — lain; c) homonyms different in their lexical meanings,
grammatical meanings, paradigms, but coinciding in their basic forms,
e.g. «light» / «lights»/, «light» / «lighter», «lightest»/;
d) homonyms different in their lexical meanings, grammatical
meanings, in their basic forms and paradigms, but coinciding in one
of the forms of their paradigms, e.g. «a bit» and «bit» (from
« to bite»).

In I. V.
Arnold’s classification there are also patterned homonyms, which,
differing from other homonyms, have a common component in their
lexical meanings. These are homonyms formed either by means of
conversion, or by levelling of grammar inflexions. These homonyms are
different in their grammar meanings, in their paradigms, identical in
their basic forms, e.g. «warm» — «to warm». Here we can also have
unchangeable patterned homonyms which have identical basic forms,
different grammatical meanings, a common component in their lexical
meanings, e.g. «before» an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition.
There are also homonyms among unchangeable words which are different
in their lexical and grammatical meanings, identical in their basic
foms, e.g. « for» — «для»
and «for» — «ибо».

24.
Homonyms. Hyponymy. Hyponymy
is a semantic relation of inclusion. (vehicle: taxi, car, tram) The
hyponymic rel-ions may be viewed as a hierarchical rel-ions btw the
m-ng of the general & the indiv terms. The gen term is sometimes
referred to classifierhyporonym & serves to describe the lex-gr
groups. The ind ref to as hyponyms, they entail the m-ng to the gen
term in add to their indiv m-ngs, which disting them from each other.
Types: nouns – mironymy, verbs – lex entailment: temporal
(study>graduate)& traponymy (to do smth in a certain manner
link>walk), backward opposition (aim: hitmiss) & casual
relations. Problems: 1. diff cl-ons (person); 2. diff lang. Homonyms
are words which is identical in sound and spelling or at least in one
of these aspects, but different in their meanings: e.g. bank (a
shore) – bank (an institution). English vocabulary is rich in such
pairs. If synonyms and antonyms can be regarded as treasure of
l-ge’s expressive resources, homonyms may lead to confusion or
misunderstanding. But this characteristic makes them one of most
important sources of humor. Homonyms which are same in sound and
spelling are termed homonyms proper. Homophones are homonyms which
are same in sound but different in spelling: e.g. bean (боб)
— been (3 to be) Homographs are words which are the same in spelling,
but different in sound: e.g. lead ([li:d] управлять)
– lead ([led] cвинец)
Classification
of homonyms: According
to Professor Smirnizkii they are subdivided into full homonyms and
partial homonyms. Full lexical homonyms are words which represent
same category of speech: e.g. match (матч)
– match (спичка).
Partial homonyms are subdivided into 3 subgroups: 1) Simple
lexico-gram. partial homonyms are words which belong to same category
of part of speech and have one identical form: e.g. lay (infinitive)
– lay (Past Indefinite of the verb to lie). 2) Complex lexico-gram.
partial homonyms are words of different categories of parts of speech
which have one identical form. e.g. rose (роза)
– rose (Past Indefinite of the verb to rise). 3) Partial lexical
homonyms are words of the same category of part of speech which are
identical only in their corresponding forms: e.g. to can
(консервировать)
– can (modal verb).

25
Synonyms. Synonyms
are words different in their outer aspects, but identical or similar
in their inner aspects. In English there are a lot of synonyms,
because there are many borrowings, e.g. hearty / native/ — cordial/
borrowing/. After a word is borrowed it undergoes desynonymization,
because absolute synonyms are unnecessary for a language. However,
there are some absolute synonyms in the language, which have exactly
the same meaning and belong to the same style, e.g. to moan, to
groan; homeland, motherland etc. In cases of desynonymization one of
the absolute synonyms can specialize in its meaning and we get
semantic synonyms, e.g. «city» /borrowed/, «town» /native/. The
French borrowing «city» is specialized. In other cases native words
can be specialized in their meanings, e.g. «stool» /native/,
«chair» /French/.Duality
of synonyms is their most confusing feature. They are somewhat same
and yet they are obviously different. Their function in speech is
revealing different aspects, shades and variations of same
phenomenon. The only existing classification system for synonyms was
established by Vinogradov. In his classification there are 4 types of
synonyms: 1. ideographic — are words conveying same concept, but dif.
in shades of meaning. (To happen — to occur — to befall — to
chance) 2. stylistic — are words different in stylistic
characteristics. Belong to different styles. (child — Infant — kid)

3. absolute
— once coincide in all their shades of meaning and in all their
stylistic characteristics.4. dialectical synonyms. (Autumn ~ fall) 
 More modern approach to classification of synonyms may be based
on definition of synonyms as words differing in conotation: 1.
connotation of degree or intensity. E.g.: to surprise- to astonish –
to amaze – to astound; 2. connotation of duration. E.g.: to stare –
to glare – to gaze – to glance – to peep – to peer; 3.
emotive connotation. E.g.: alone – single – lonely – solitary;
4. evaluative connotation conveys speaker’s attitude as good or
bad: e.g. well-known – famous – notorious –celebrated; 5.
causative connotation: e.g. to sparkle (сиять(глаза)
положительные
эмоции)
– to glitter (блестят,
но
эмоции
отрицательные)
— to shiver (with cold, from a chill, because of a frost) – to
shudder (with fear); 6. connotation of manner: e.g. to stroll – to
stride – to trot – to pace – to swagger – to stagger. All
these synonyms denote different ways and types of walking: length of
space, tempo, gait.

SYNONYMS

Synonyms are words different in
their outer aspects, but identical or similar in their inner aspects.
In English there are a lot of synonyms, because there are many
borrowings, e.g. hearty / native/ — cordial/ borrowing/. After a
word is borrowed it undergoes desynonymization, because absolute
synonyms are unnecessary for a language. However, there are some
absolute synonyms in the language, which have exactly the same
meaning and belong to the same style, e.g. to moan, to groan;
homeland, motherland etc. In cases of desynonymization one of the
absolute synonyms can specialize in its meaning and we get
semantic synonyms, e.g. «city» /borrowed/, «town» /native/. The
French borrowing «city» is specialized. In other cases native words
can be specialized in their meanings, e.g. «stool» /native/,
«chair» /French/.

Sometimes one of the absolute
synonyms is specialized in its usage and we get stylistic synonyms,
e.g. «to begin»/ native/, «to commence» /borrowing/. Here the
French word is specialized. In some cases the native word is
specialized, e.g. «welkin» /bookish/, «sky» /neutral/.

Stylistic synonyms can also
appear by means of abbreviation. In most cases the abbreviated form
belongs to the colloquial style, and the full form to the neutral
style, e.g. «examination’, «exam».

Among stylistic synonyms we can
point out a special group of words which are called euphemisms. These
are words used to substitute some unpleasant or offensive words, e.g
«the late» instead of «dead», «to perspire» instead of «to
sweat» etc.

There are also phraseological
synonyms, these words are identical in their meanings and styles but
different in their combining with other words in the sentence, e.g.
«to be late for a lecture» but «to miss the train», «to visit
museums» but «to attend lectures» etc.

In each group of synonyms there
is a word with the most general meaning, which can substitute any
word in the group, e.g. «piece» is the synonymic dominant in the
group «slice», «lump», «morsel». The verb « to look at» is
the synonymic dominant in the group «to stare», «to glance», «to
peep». The adjective «red’ is the synonymic dominant in the group
«purple», «scarlet», «crimson».

When speaking about the sources
of synonyms, besides desynonymization and abbreviation, we can also
mention the formation of phrasal verbs, e.g. «to give up» — «to
abandon», «to cut down» — «to diminish».

26.
Antonyms
Traditionally antonyms are treated as words with opposed meanings,
but the notion of the opposition is rather vague. Nikitin states that
antonomy is based on the semantic opposition of features. Arnold:
“Antonyms are two or more words of the same language belonging to
the same part of speech and to the same semantic field identical in
style and nearly identical in distribution associated and often used
together, so that their denotative meanings render contradictory or
contrary notions. Complete antonyms are fairly rare. The relations of
antonomy restricted to certain contexts (e.g. thick – thin).
Antonomy may be both structural and contextual. In the latter case
the words are not regularly opposed by certain feature between
antonyms in specific context (e.g. “It was the spring of hope” –
“It was the winter of despair”) and are contrasted due to their
context. Бублякова
suggested 4 criteria for classifying antonyms:1) Substantivity vs.
predicativity (predicative antonyms, unlike substanted, represent an
opposition of feature or a situation: e.g. “cry” – “laughter”
= substanted antonyms, but e.g. “to cry” – “to laugh”
=predicative antonyms); 2) Privacy vs. equipollency (private
opposition is characterized by the presence of the certain feature in
one member of the opposition and the absence of the same feature in
the other. Private antonyms are called quantitative. In the
equipollent opposition one member is characterized by a certain
feature and the other member corresponds to a feature correlating
with the first one: e.g. “man” – “woman”. These antonyms
are qualitative); 3) Static (e.g. “male” – “female”) vs.
dynamic (e.g. “arrival” – “departure”); 4) Binary vs.
gradual (Binary antonyms have only 2 members opposed to each other,
gradual antonyms – more than 2 members in the opposition): a)
Contradictories – are mutually opposed and deny one another (e.g.
“dead” – “alive”, “perfect” – “imperfect”). Among
contradictories there is a subgroup of words of the type “young”
– “old”. The difference between this in the antonymic pairs
lies in the fact that to say “not young” is not necessarily to
say “old”; b) Contraries – mutually opposed but they are
gradable (e.g. “cold” – “hot”); c) Incompatibles –
semantic relations in incompatibles exists among the antonyms within
common components of meaning and may be described as the reverse of
hyponomy, the relations of exclusion but not contradiction (e.g. to
say “morning” is not to say “afternoon”). Another
classification of antonyms is based on the morphological approach: a)
root or absolute antonyms (e.g. “right” – “wrong”); b) the
presence of negative affixes creates derivational antonyms (e.g.
“happy” – “unhappy”). There are typical affixes and typical
patterns that form derivational antonyms. The relevant type of
derivational antonyms contains negative prefixes dis-, a-, im-, in-.
as to the suffixes in modern English they are not just added to the
root but exchanged for another suffix (e.g. “hopeless” –
“hopeful”). Almost every word can have one or more synonyms,
comparatively few have antonyms, they are: a) qualitative adjectives
(e.g. “old”); b) words connected with feelings or state (e.g.
“hope” – “despair”); c) words of direction (e.g. “here”
– “there”); d) words of position in space and time (e.g. “far”
– “near”); e) some others (e.g. “day” – “night”,
“late” – early”). Conversives denote one and the same
referent or situation as viewed from different point of view (e.g.
“buy” – “sell”, “give” – “receive”; “to marry”
renders both conversive meanings, it denotes good for both
participants). Reversives – verbs denoting the reverse or the
undoing of the action expressed by one of them (e.g. “time” –
“untime”, “marry” – “divorce”)

ANTONYMS

Antonyms are words belonging to
the same part of speech, identical in style, expressing contrary or
contradictory notions.

V.N. Comissarov in his
dictionary of antonyms classified them into two groups : absolute or
root antonyms /»late» — «early»/ and derivational antonyms / «to
please’ — «to displease»/ . Absolute antonyms have different
roots and derivational antonyms have the same roots but different
affixes. In most cases negative prefixes form antonyms / un-, dis-,
non-/. Sometimes they are formed by means of suffixes -ful and -less.

The number of antonyms with the
suffixes ful- and -less is not very large, and sometimes even if we
have a word with one of these suffixes its antonym is formed not by
substituting -ful by less-, e.g. «successful» -»unsuccessful»,
«selfless» — «selfish». The same is true about antonyms with
negative prefixes, e.g. «to man» is not an antonym of the word «to
unman», «to disappoint» is not an antonym of the word «to
appoint».

The difference between
derivational and root antonyms is not only in their structure, but in
semantics as well. Derivational antonyms express contradictory
notions, one of them excludes the other, e.g. «active»- «inactive».
Absolute antonyms express contrary notions. If some notions can be
arranged in a group of more than two members, the most distant
members of the group will be absolute antonyms, e.g. «ugly» ,
«plain», «good-looking», «pretty», «beautiful», the antonyms
are «ugly» and «beautiful».

Leonard Lipka in the book
«Outline of English Lexicology» describes different types of
oppositeness, and subdivides them into three types:

a) complementary, e.g. male
-female, married -single,

b) antonyms, e.g. good -bad,

c) converseness, e.g. to buy —
to sell.

In his classification he
describes complimentarity in the following way: the denial of the
one implies the assertion of the other, and vice versa. «John is not
married» implies that «John is single». The type of oppositeness
is based on yes/no decision. Incompatibility only concerns pairs of
lexical units.

Antonymy is the second class of
oppositeness. It is distinguished from complimentarity by being based
on different logical relationships. For pairs of antonyms like
good/bad, big/small only the second one of the above mentioned
relations of implication holds. The assertion containing one member
implies the negation of the other, but not vice versa. «John is
good» implies that «John is not bad», but «John is not good»
does not imply that «John is bad». The negation of one term does
not necessarily implies the assertion of the other.

An important linguistic
difference from complementaries is that antonyms are always fully
gradable, e.g. hot, warm, tepid, cold.

Converseness is mirror-image
relations or functions, e.g. husband/wife, pupil/teacher,
preceed/follow, above/below, before/after etc.

«John bought the car from
Bill» implies that «Bill sold the car to John». Mirror-image
sentences are in many ways similar to the relations between active
and passive sentences. Also in the comparative form: »Y is smaller
than X, then X is larger than Y».

L. Lipka also gives the type
which he calls directional opposition up/down, consiquence
opposition learn/know, antipodal opposition North/South, East/West,
( it is based on contrary motion, in opposite directions.) The pairs
come/go, arrive/depart involve motion in different directions. In the
case up/down we have movement from a point P. In the case come/go we
have movement from or to the speaker.

L. Lipka also points out
non-binary contrast or many-member lexical sets. Here he points out
serially ordered sets, such as scales / hot, warm, tepid, cool,
cold/ ; colour words / black, grey, white/ ; ranks /marshal,
general, colonel, major, captain etc./ There are gradable
examination marks / excellent, good, average, fair, poor/. In such
sets of words we can have outer and inner pairs of antonyms. He also
points out cycles, such as units of time /spring, summer, autumn,
winter/ . In this case there are no «outermost» members.

Not every word in a language
can have antonyms. This type of opposition can be met in qualitative
adjectives and their derivatives, e.g. beautiful- ugly, to beautify —
to uglify, beauty — ugliness. It can be also met in words denoting
feelings and states, e.g. respect — scorn, to respect — to scorn,
respectful — scornful, to live — to die, alive — dead, life — death.
It can be also met among words denoting direction in space and time,
e.g. here — there, up — down , now — never, before — after, day —
night, early — late etc.

If a word is polysemantic it
can have several antonyms, e.g. the word «bright» has the antonyms
«dim», «dull», «sad».

27.
Euphemism
is a substitution for an expression that may offend or suggest
something unpleasant to the receiver, using instead an agreeable or
less offensive expression,^[1]
or to make it less troublesome for the speaker. When a phrase is used
as a euphemism, it often becomes a metaphor whose literal meaning is
dropped. Euphemisms may be used to hide unpleasant or disturbing
ideas, even when the literal term for them is not necessarily
offensive. This type of euphemism is used in public
relations
and politics,
where it is sometimes called doublespeak.
Sometimes the use of euphemisms is equated to politeness.
There are also superstitious euphemisms, based (consciously or
subconsciously) on the idea that words have the power to bring bad
fortune, and there are religious euphemisms, based on the idea that
some words are holy, or that some words are spiritually perilous
(taboo;
see etymology).
lame
→ crippled
→ handicapped
→ disabled
→ physically challenged → differently abled

«Im not an expert on this
topic, but . . .

This isn�t
exactly an exciting topic, but . . .

I hope
you�ll
find this interesting.

Had I more
time to prepare . . .These expressions all have the same thing in
common. They cause your audience to wonder why you �
and especially they �
are there. Each statement communicates the same message: �This
isn�t
going to be a very good use of your time �
get a seat close to the door.�
They are unnecessary and harmful statements. They are �power
thieves�
that sap the energy from your ideas. The three greatest thieves are
apologies, feeble phrases, and weak words. Attack them on every
front.

28. word
combinations are subdivided into:1)set expressions – studied by
biology 2) free word combinations studied partially by lexicology.
Free word groups are produced, not introduce in speech, and they have
non idiomatic character. «we know a word by the company it keeps».
Grammatical valence – is the aptness of a word to appear in
different syntactic structures. The range of grammatical valence is
determined by the part of speech, the words belong to. Lexical
valence is the aptness of word, to be combined with other words and
word combination. Lexical colloqability — the relation in speech
lexical valence.( tall building tall man, nigh building but not high
man). In the case of policemy we have different lexical semantic
variants, and they are realized through different lexical semantical
collacability. ( party вечеринка,
партия,
собеседник).
classification of free word groups. 1) structural – according to a
structure. Endosentric – a word groups have 1 central component,
functionally equivalent to the whole word group. Exosentric – word
groups, they have no 1 central compounent, and the compomemts are not
syntactically substitutable for the whole word groups. ( side by
side). Endocentric word groups can be classified according word
groups. (nominal – red flower, verbal, adjectival – nice to
people)2) according to the syntactic pattern. –predicative –

29
Grammatical valiancy.
– the aptness of the word to appear in specific grammatical and
syntactic structure. Gram valiancy of each individual word is
dependent on a grammatical structure of the language. We may say: to
be clever at sth, but intelligent at sth is impossible to say. To
propose to do sth – suggest doing sth. Grammatical valiancy or
restriction is different in different languages. In English: to
influence smb – влиять на
(без
on). To have a greatest influence on.

The
individual meaning of polisemantic words may also be described in
different structures: f.e. 1. keen +noun. Keen on sth (sport, music)
2. A keen hearing (sight) – острый взгляд
(слух)
3. Keen+verb inf. Keen to know/find out.

Thus
lexical valiancy may be regarded as the characteristic, minimal
lexical structures that operate as distinguishing choose, for each of
the multiple meaning of the word. Grammatical valiancy may be
regarded as minimal, syntactic or syntagmatic structures that operate
as distinguishing choose for different meanings of the polisemantic
words.

30. Word
groups and phraseological units.
Words put together form different kinds of units: word groups and
phrases. Lexicology deals with words, word forming morphemes and word
groups. The degree of structural and semantic coition may vary.

Some
words are functionally and semantically
inseparable.
These are set phrases, word equivalence or phraseological units.
Studied by phraseology.
The component members in other word groups possess greater semantic
and structure independence. Word groups of this type are defined as
free and variable word groups or phrases and are habitually srudied
in sintex.

Some
basic features common to various types of word groups lexical
valiancy
(collocobility – сочетаемость). This is the aptness
(готовность)
оf
a word to appear in various combinations. F.e. question collocates
with the following adj-s – vital, pressing, urgent, tricky,
disputable – in word combinations; with verbs: to raise a question,
a question of great importance, a question on the agenda, a question
of the day. The range of lexical valiancy is linguistically
restricted (ограничен) by the inner-structure of the English
word stock. Lift – raise (we can’t say lift a question). There is
a certain norm of lexical valiancy for each word. And any departure
from this norm is felt as a literary or a stylistic device. To shove
a question (толкнуть) – stylistically marked. Words
habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché.
The lexical valiancy of correlated words if different in different
languages. Garden flowers- coincide but pot flowers (not room
flowers).

The
restriction of lexical valiancy of words may manifest itself in the
lexical meanings of the polisemantic words. Heavy: 1. Heavy
food/meal/supper – rich and difficult to digest. 2. Heavy
way/book/table – mean overload. Heavy stone/cnow/rain – too
much, great. Heavy sleep/disappointment/sorrow – too deep. Heavy
industry/arms/tanks – strong.

PHRASEOLOGY

The vocabulary of a language
is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units.
Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be made in the
process of speech, they exist in the language as ready-made units.
They are compiled in special dictionaries. The same as words
phraseological units express a single notion and are used in a
sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call
such units «idioms». We can mention such dictionaries as: L.Smith
«Words and Idioms», V.Collins «A Book of English Idioms» etc. In
these dictionaries we can find words, peculiar in their semantics
(idiomatic), side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these
dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, into different semantic
groups.

Phraseological units can be
classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the
degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their
structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning.

WAYS OF FORMING
PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS

A.V. Koonin classified
phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed
out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

Primary ways of forming
phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of
a free word-group

a) Most
productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units
by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups,
e.g. in cosmic technique we can point out the following phrases:
«launching pad» in its terminological meaning is «стартовая
площадка»
, in its transferred meaning — «отправной
пункт»,
«to link up» — «cтыковаться,
стыковать
космические
корабли»
in its tranformed meaning it means -«знакомиться»;

b) a large
group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by
transforming their meaning, e.g. «granny farm» — «пансионат
для
престарелых»,
«Troyan horse» — «компьюторная
программа,
преднамеренно
составленная
для
повреждения
компьютера»;

c)
phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration , e.g.
«a sad sack» — «несчастный
случай»,
«culture vulture» — «человек,
интересующийся
искусством»,
«fudge and nudge» — «уклончивость».

d) they can
be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic
for forming interjections, e.g. «My aunt!», « Hear, hear !» etc

e) they can be formed by means
of distorting a word group, e.g. «odds and ends» was formed from
«odd ends»,

f) they can be formed by using
archaisms, e.g. «in brown study» means «in gloomy meditation»
where both components preserve their archaic meanings,

g) they can
be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, e.g.
«that cock won’t fight» can be used as a free word-group when it
is used in sports (cock fighting ), it becomes a phraseological unit
when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically,

h) they can
be formed when we use some unreal image, e.g. «to have butterflies
in the stomach» — «испытывать
волнение»,
«to have green fingers» — »преуспевать
как
садовод-любитель»
etc.

i) they can
be formed by using expressions of writers or polititions in everyday
life, e.g. «corridors of power» (Snow), «American dream» (Alby)
«locust years» (Churchil) , «the winds of change» (Mc Millan).

Secondary ways of forming
phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed
on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:

a) conversion, e.g. «to vote
with one’s feet» was converted into «vote with one’s f eet»;

b) changing the grammar form,
e.g. «Make hay while the sun shines» is transferred into a verbal
phrase — «to make hay while the sun shines»;

c) analogy, e.g. «Curiosity
killed the cat» was transferred into «Care killed the cat»;

d) contrast, e.g. «cold
surgery» — «a planned before operation» was formed by contrasting
it with «acute surgery», «thin cat» — «a poor person» was
formed by contrasting it with «fat cat»;

e)
shortening of proverbs or sayings e.g. from the proverb «You can’t
make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear» by means of clipping the
middle of it the phraseological unit «to make a sow’s ear» was
formed with the meaning «ошибаться».

f) borrowing
phraseological units from other languages, either as translation
loans, e.g. « living space» (German), « to take the bull by the
horns» ( Latin) or by means of phonetic borrowings «meche blanche»
(French), «corpse d’elite» (French), «sotto voce» (Italian)
etc.

Phonetic borrowings among
phraseological units refer to the bookish style and are not used very
often.

SEMANTIC
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS

Phraseological units can be
classified according to the degree of motivation of their meaning.
This classification was suggested by acad. V.V. Vinogradov for
Russian phraseological units. He pointed out three types of
phraseological units:

a) fusions where the degree of
motivation is very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from
the meanings of its components, they are highly idiomatic and cannot
be translated word for word into other languages, e.g. on Shank’s
mare — (on foot), at sixes and sevens — (in a mess) etc;

b) unities where the meaning of
the whole can be guessed from the meanings of its components, but it
is transferred (metaphorical or metonymical), e.g. to play the first
fiddle ( to be a leader in something), old salt (experienced sailor)
etc;

c) collocations where words are
combined in their original meaning but their combinations are
different in different languages, e.g. cash and carry —
(self-service shop), in a big way (in great degree) etc.

STRUCTURAL
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky worked
out structural classification of phraseological units, comparing them
with words. He points out one-top units which he compares with
derived words because derived words have only one root morpheme. He
points out two-top units which he compares with compound words
because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes.

Among one-top units he points
out three structural types;

a) units of the type «to give
up» (verb + postposition type), e.g. to art up, to back up, to
drop out, to nose out, to buy into, to sandwich in etc.;

b) units of the type «to be
tired» . Some of these units remind the Passive Voice in their
structure but they have different prepositons with them, while in the
Passive Voice we can have only prepositions «by» or «with», e.g.
to be tired of, to be interested in, to be surprised at etc. There
are also units in this type which remind free word-groups of the type
«to be young», e.g. to be akin to, to be aware of etc. The
difference between them is that the adjective «young» can be used
as an attribute and as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal
component in such units can act only as a predicative. In these units
the verb is the grammar centre and the second component is the
semantic centre;

c) prepositional- nominal
phraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable
words: prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs , that is why they have no
grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part, e.g. on
the doorstep (quite near), on the nose (exactly), in the course of,
on the stroke of, in time, on the point of etc. In the course of
time such units can become words, e.g. tomorrow, instead etc.

Among two-top units A.I.
Smirnitsky points out the following structural types:

a) attributive-nominal such as:
a month of Sundays, grey matter, a millstone round one’s neck and
many others. Units of this type are noun equivalents and can be
partly or perfectly idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units (phrasisms)
sometimes the first component is idiomatic, e.g. high road, in other
cases the second component is idiomatic, e.g. first night. In many
cases both components are idiomatic, e.g. red tape, blind alley, bed
of nail, shot in the arm and many others.

b) verb-nominal phraseological
units, e.g. to read between the lines , to speak BBC, to sweep under
the carpet etc. The grammar centre of such units is the verb, the
semantic centre in many cases is the nominal component, e.g. to fall
in love. In some units the verb is both the grammar and the semantic
centre, e.g. not to know the ropes. These units can be perfectly
idiomatic as well, e.g. to burn one’s boats,to vote with one’s
feet, to take to the cleaners’ etc.

Very close to such units are
word-groups of the type to have a glance, to have a smoke. These
units are not idiomatic and are treated in grammar as a special
syntactical combination, a kind of aspect.

c) phraseological repetitions,
such as : now or never, part and parcel , country and western etc.
Such units can be built on antonyms, e.g. ups and downs , back and
forth; often they are formed by means of alliteration, e.g cakes and
ale, as busy as a bee. Components in repetitions are joined by means
of conjunctions. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives
and have no grammar centre. They can also be partly or perfectly
idiomatic, e.g. cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter
(perfectly).

Phraseological units the same
as compound words can have more than two tops (stems in compound
words), e.g. to take a back seat, a peg to hang a thing on, lock,
stock and barrel, to be a shaddow of one’s own self, at one’s own
sweet will

SYNTACTICAL
CLASSIFICATION

OF
PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS

Phraseological units can be
clasified as parts of speech. This classification was suggested by
I.V. Arnold. Here we have the following groups:

a) noun phraseologisms denoting
an object, a person, a living being, e.g. bullet train, latchkey
child, redbrick university, Green Berets,

b) verb phraseologisms denoting
an action, a state, a feeling, e.g. to break the log-jam, to get on
somebody’s coattails, to be on the beam, to nose out , to make
headlines,

c) adjective phraseologisms
denoting a quality, e.g. loose as a goose, dull as lead ,

d) adverb phraseological units,
such as : with a bump, in the soup, like a dream , like a dog with
two tails,

e) preposition phraseological
units, e.g. in the course of, on the stroke of ,

f)
interjection phraseological units, e.g. «Catch me!», «Well, I
never

Structure
and word’s groups.
Structurally words may be approached in various ways. Words may be
described through
the order and arrangement of the component members:
f.e. to see sth – is a verbal nominal group. To see to sth – is a
verbal prepositional nominal word group.

Words
may also be analyzed by the criteria
of distribution
into 2 big classes: 1. Endocentric
– having one central member, functionally equivalent of the whole
word group: red flower or bravely of all kinds. 2. Exocentric –
means the distribution of the words without any central member, the
component words are not syntactically substitutable for the whole
word group: one by one, side by side, to grow colder, smaller,
warmer.

Words
may be classified according to the head
words
into: nominal
groups
(red flower), adjectival
groups (kind to people), verbal
groups (to speak well, to grow smaller).

According
to the syntactic
pattern
words fall into: predicative
(have syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence. Joch works,
I grew, I went, they were). non-predicative:
1. Coordinative
(women and children, love and care, to be or not to be, day and
night, live and die) – function separately independent from each
other. 2. Subordinative
(red flower, bravely of all kinds, a woman of high disposition, a man
of wisdom) , “red” – subord to flower.

phraseological
units.
There are 3 word groups and set phrases. The border line between free
or variable word groups and phraseological units isn’t clearly
defined.

Three
groups are only relatively free, because of lexical and grammatical
valiancy which makes at least some of them very close to se phrases.
Phraseological units are comparatively stable and symantically
inseparable: to bear grudge (malice).

Between
extremes of complete motivation and variability of member words on
the one hand and back of motivation combined with complete stability
of the lexical component and grammatical structure on the other hand
there are innumerable borderline cases. Red tape – completely
non-motivated it lacks motivation. To wash one dirty liner in public
– to disclose, to reveal – are partly motivated. Red flower –
completely motivated.

These
borderline cases: set phrases, idioms, and word equivalents.
These are the most debatable issues of phraseology. If we speak about
set
phrases
the main criteria of differentiation is stability of the lexical
component and grammatical structure. Idioms
– the main differentiation – idiomaticity – is lack of
motivation. Idioms – the term coincides with the term
phraseological units. Word equivalents stress not only the semantic
but also the functional inseparability of certain word groups and the
aptness to function in speech as single units.

Criteria
of distinguishing phraseological units.
1. Criteria of stability and lack of motivation (ideomaticity). It
also in other words calls semantic
criterion.
Phraseological units are habitually defined as nonmotivated word
groups that can’t be freely made up at speech but are reproduced as
ready made units.
The essential feature is stability of lexical components and lack of
motivation. F.e. a red flower – red tape. According to the semantic
criteria of phraseological units are classified into: 1.
Phraseological
fusions
– are completely nonmotivated word groups. White elephant, red
tape, heavy father, leak the button – to die. 2. Unities are
partially nonmotivated. Their meaning can be perceived through
metaphoric meaning of the group: to take the bullm by the horns, to
show one’s teeth. 3. Colloquations are motivated word groups. They
are made up of words possessing specific lexical valiancy which
accounts for a certain degree of stability. The variability is
limited by lexical and grammatical valiancy.

2.
Criteria
of function.
It assumes that phraseological unit may be defined as specific word
group functioning as word equivalence. The fyndamental features of
phraseological units are the semantic and grammatical inseparability.
Heavy weight – a free word group. Each of the member words has its
own denotational meaning. Heavy father – the denotational meaning
belongs to the word group as a single semantically unseparable unit.
3. Criteria
of context.
Free word groups make up variable contexts. Phraseological units make
up nonvatiable or fixed context: a small room/town/picture/audience/
house/child. Small hours – утренние часы
– the context is fixed. According to the criteria of context
phraseological units are classified into: 1. Phrasemes
— phraseological units, have some specialized meaning of the
component: small hours – the second component serves as an only
dew to the particular meaning of the 1^st
component as it is found only in the given context. 2. Idioms –
none of the components possesses any specialized meaning. Red tape,
mares nest – a dixcovery which proves false or worthless.