Valency is the aptness of a word to appear in various combinations

Free
word groups

Lexical
and grammatical valency

The
aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as
its lexical valency or collocability. The noun job, for example, is
often combined with such adjectives as backbreaking, difficult, hard;
full-time, part-time, summer, cushy, easy; demanding; menial, etc.
The noun myth may be a component of a number of word-groups, e.g. to
create a myth, to dispel a myth, to explode a myth, myths and
legends, etc. Lexical valency acquires special importance in case of
polysemy as through the lexical valency different meanings of a
polysemantic word can be distinguished, for instance, cf.: heavy
table (safe, luggage); heavy snow (rain, storm); heavy drinker
(eater); heavy sleep (sorrow, disappointment); heavy industry
(tanks).

The
range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by
the inner structure of the English word-stock. Though the verbs lift
and raise are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that
is collocated with the noun question.

The
restrictions of lexical valency of words may also manifest themselves
in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word groups.
For example, the adjective heavy in the meaning ‘rich and difficult
to digest’ is combined with the words food, meals, supper. But it
cannot be used with the words cheese or sausage (the words with more
or less the same component of meaning) implying that the cheese or
the sausage is difficult to digest.

Words
habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliche, for
instance, the noun arms and the noun race. Thus, arms race is a
cliche.

The
lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is
different, cf.: in English pot flowers – in Russian комнатные
цветы.

Grammatical
valency is the aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical
(or rather syntactic) structures. The minimal grammatical context in
which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is
usually described as the pattern of the word-groups. For instance,
the verb to offer can be followed by the infinitive (to offer to do
smth.) and the noun (to offer a cup of tea). The verb to suggest can
be followed by the gerund (to suggest doing smth.) and the noun (to
suggest an idea). The grammatical valency of these verbs is
different.

The
adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different
grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the
pattern: adjective + preposition ‘at’ + noun (clever at
mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the
same word-group pattern.

The
grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages is not
identical, cf.: in English to influence a person, a decision, a
choice (verb + noun) — in Russian влиять на человека,
на решение, на выбор (verb + preposition + noun).

27.
Definition
of phraseological units. Characteristic features of phraseological
units. V. Vinogradov’s conception of phraseological units.

Phraseological units (idioms) are stable word-groups characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning, lack of motivation.

Word equivalents are certain word groups, their ability to function in speech as single words.

The essential features of phraseological units are: 1) Lack of semantic motivation; 2) Lexical and grammatical stability.

28.
Different
approaches to the classification of phraseological units: semantic,
functional, contextual. A.V. Coonin’s concept of phraseological
units.

Classification
based on the semantic principle:

Fusions(completely
non-motivated idiomatic word-groups: to
bell the cat («to
take a risk for the good of others»), a
white elephant (»
a present one can’t get rid of), once
in a blue moon («hardly
at all» or «hardly ever»))

Half-
fusions(stable word-groups in which the leading component is literal,
while the rest of the group is idiomatically fused:

to
talk through one’s hat («to
talk foolishly»), to
buy something for a song («to
buy smth. very cheaply»), to
pay through the nose («to
pay unreasonably much»), to
rain cats and dogs («to
rain heavily»)

Unities(metaphorically
motivated idioms:to
make a mountain out of a molehill («to
become excited about trifles»))

Half-unities(binary
word-groups in which one of the components is literal, while the
other is phraseologically bound (the so-termed phrasemes):black
frost («frost
without ice or snow»)

Phraseological
collocations(-groups with the components whose combinative power
(valency) is strictly limited: to
make friends (but
not * to
do friends or
* to
make comrades).

Phraseological
expressions(proverbs, sayings and aphoristic familiar quotations:

Birds
of a feather flock together ()

The
Koonin’s classification is
the latest outstanding achievement in the Russian theory of
phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural —
semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of
phraseological units.

I.
Nominative phraseological units —
are represented by word — groups, including the ones with one
meaningful word, and coordinative phrases of the type wear and tear,
well and good.

II.
Nominative — communicative phraseological units —
include word — groups, of the type to break the ice — the ice is
broken, that is, verbal word — groups which are transformed into a
sentence when the verb is used in the Passive Voice.

III.
Phraseological units —
which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional
word — groups.

IV.
Communicative phraseological units —
are represented by proverbs and sayings.

Phraseology

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

LECTURE 12.
WORD-GROUPS AND PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
1. Lexical and Grammatical Valency
2. Structure and Classification of Word-Groups
3. Types of Meaning of Word-Groups
4. Motivation in Word-Groups

1. Lexical and grammatical valency
The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability. The noun job, for example, is often combined with such adjectives as backbreaking, difficult, hard; full-time, part-time, summer, cushy, easy; demanding; menial, etc. The noun myth may be a component of a number of word-groups, e.g. to create a myth, to dispel a myth, to explode a myth, myths and legends, etc. Lexical valency acquires special importance in case of polysemy as through the lexical valency different meanings of a polysemantic word can be distinguished, for instance, cf.: heavy table (safe, luggage); heavy snow (rain, storm); heavy drinker (eater); heavy sleep (sorrow, disappointment); heavy industry (tanks).
The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. Though the verbs lift and raise are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question.
The restrictions of lexical valency of words may also manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word groups. For example, the adjective heavy in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’ is combined with the words food, meals, supper. But it cannot be used with the words cheese or sausage (the words with more or less the same component of meaning) implying that the cheese or the sausage is difficult to digest.
Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliche, for instance, the noun arms and the noun race. Thus, arms race is a cliche.
The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is different, cf.: in English pot flowers – in Russian комнатные цветы.
Grammatical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures. The minimal grammatical context in which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-groups. For instance, the verb to offer can be followed by the infinitive (to offer to do smth.) and the noun (to offer a cup of tea). The verb to suggest can be followed by the gerund (to suggest doing smth.) and the noun (to suggest an idea). The grammatical valency of these verbs is different.
The adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: adjective + preposition ‘at’ + noun (clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.
The grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical, cf.: in English to influence a person, a decision, a choice (verb + noun) — in Russian влиять на человека, на решение, на выбор (verb + preposition + noun).

2. Structure and classification of word groups
The term ‘syntactic structure (formula)’ implies the description of the order and arrangement of member-words in word-groups as parts of speech. For instance, the syntactic structure of the word-groups a clever man, a red flower may be described as made up of an adjective and a noun, i.e. A + N; of the word-groups to take books, to build houses — as a verb and a noun, i.e. V + N.
The structure of word-groups may also be described in relation to the head-word. In this case it is usual to speak of the pattern but not of formulas. For example, the patterns of the verbal groups to take books, to build houses are to take + N, to build + N. The term ‘syntactic pattern’ implies the description of the structure of the word-group in which a given word is used as its head.
According to the syntactic pattern word-groups may be classified into predicative and non-predicative. Predicative word-groups have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence, e.g. he went, John works. All other word-groups are called non-predicative. Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided into subordinative (e.g. red flower, a man of wisdom) and coordinative (e.g. women and children, do or die).
Structurally, all word-groups can be classified by the criterion of distribution into two extensive classes: endocentric and exocentric.
Endocentric word-groups are those that have one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group, i.e. the distribution
The meaning of word-groups can be divided into: 1) lexical and 2) structural (grammatical) components of the whole word-group and the distribution of its central member are identical. For instance, in the word-groups red flower, kind to people, the head-words are the noun flower and the adjective kind correspondingly. These word-groups are distributionally identical with their central components. According to their central members word-groups may be classified into: nominal groups or phrases (e.g. redflower), adjectival groups (e.g. kind to people), verbal groups (e.g. to speak well), etc.
Exocentric word-groups are those that have no central component and the distribution of the whole word-group is different from either of its members. For instance, the distribution of the word-group side by side is not identical with the distribution of its component-members, i.e. the component-members are not syntactically substitutable for the whole word-group.
3. Types of meaning of word-groups
The meaning of word-groups can be divided into: 1) lexical and 2) structural (grammatical) components).
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. However, 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. For example, such word-groups as 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. It follows that it is necessary to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of a word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.
The lexical and structural components of meaning in word-groups are interdependent and inseparable. For instance, 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. The generalized meaning of the pattern may be described as ‘a unit of time’. Replacing day, night, week by another noun – the sun the structural meaning of the pattern does not change. The group all the sun long functions semantically as a unit of time. But the noun sun included in the group, continues to carry the semantic value, i.e. the lexical meaning that it has in word-groups of other structural patterns, e.g. the sun rays, African sun.
Thus, the meaning of the word-group is derived from the combined lexical meanings of its constituents and is inseparable from the meaning of the pattern of their arrangement.

4. Motivation in word-groups
Semantically all word-groups can be classified into motivated and non-motivated.
A word-group is lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the meanings of its components, e.g. red flower, heavy weight, teach a lesson.
If the combined lexical meaning of a word-group is not deducible from the lexical meanings of its constituent components, such a word-group is lexically non-motivated, e.g. red tape (‘official bureaucratic methods’), take place (‘occur’).
The degree of motivation can be different. Between the extremes о complete motivation and lack of motivation there are innumerable intermediate cases. For example, the degree of lexical motivation in the nominal group black market is higher than in black death, but lower than in black dress, though none of the groups can be considered completely non-motivated. This is also true of other words-groups, e.g old man and old boy both of which may be regarded as lexically motivated though the degree of motivation in old man is noticeably higher.
It should be noted that seemingly identical word-groups are sometimes found to be motivated or non-motivated depending on their semantic interpretation. Thus, apple sauce is lexically motivated where it means ‘a sauce made of apples’ but when used to denote ‘nonsense’ it is clearly non-motivated.
Completely non-motivated or partially motivated word-groups are described as phraseological units or idioms.

---

Подборка по базе: Документ Microsoft Word (3).docx, Документ Microsoft Word (3).docx, Документ Microsoft Word (2).docx, Документ Microsoft Word.docx, Документ Microsoft Word (2).docx, Документ Microsoft Word (3).docx, Документ Microsoft Word (2).docx, Microsoft Word Document.docx, Документ Microsoft Word.docx, Документ Microsoft Word.docx

---

Семинар 6 Combinability. Word Groups

KEY TERMS

Syntagmatics — linear (simultaneous) relationship of words in speech as distinct from associative (non-simultaneous) relationship of words in language (paradigmatics). Syntagmatic relations specify the combination of elements into complex forms and sentences.

Distribution — The set of elements with which an item can cooccur

Combinability — the ability of linguistic elements to combine in speech.

Valency — the potential ability of words to occur with other words

Context — the semantically complete passage of written speech sufficient to establish the meaning of a given word (phrase).

Clichе´ — an overused expression that is considered trite, boring

Word combination — a combination of two or more notional words serving to express one concept. It is produced, not reproduced in speech.

Collocation — such a combination of words which conditions the realization of a certain meaning
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND EXERCISES
1. Syntagmatic relations and the concept of combinability of words. Define combinability.
Syntagmatic relation defines the relationship between words that co-occur in the same sentence. It focuses on two main parts: how the position and the word order affect the meaning of a sentence.

The syntagmatic relation explains:

• The word position and order.

• The relationship between words gives a particular meaning to the sentence.

The syntagmatic relation can also explain why specific words are often paired together (collocations)

Syntagmatic relations are linear relations between words

The adjective yellow:

1. color: a yellow dress;

2. envious, suspicious: a yellow look;

3. corrupt: the yellow press
TYPES OF SEMANTIC RELATIONS

Because syntagmatic relations have to do with the relationship between words, the syntagms can result in collocations and idioms.
Collocations
Collocations are word combinations that frequently occur together.

Some examples of collocations:

• Verb + noun: do homework, take a risk, catch a cold.
• Noun + noun: office hours, interest group, kitchen cabinet.
• Adjective + adverb: good enough, close together, crystal clear.
• Verb + preposition: protect from, angry at, advantage of.
• Adverb + verb: strongly suggest, deeply sorry, highly successful.
• Adjective + noun: handsome man, quick shower, fast food.

Idioms

Idioms are expressions that have a meaning other than their literal one.

Idioms are distinct from collocations:

• The word combination is not interchangeable (fixed expressions).
• The meaning of each component is not equal to the meaning of the idiom

It is difficult to find the meaning of an idiom based on the definition of the words alone. For example, red herring. If you define the idiom word by word, it means ‘red fish’, not ‘something that misleads’, which is the real meaning.

Because of this, idioms can’t be translated to or from another language because the word definition isn’t equivalent to the idiom interpretation.
Some examples of popular idioms:

• Break a leg.
• Miss the boat.
• Call it a day.
• It’s raining cats and dogs.
• Kill two birds with one stone.

Combinability (occurrence-range) — the ability of linguistic elements to combine in speech.

The combinability of words is as a rule determined by their meanings, not their forms. Therefore not every sequence of words may be regarded as a combination of words.
In the sentence Frankly, father, I have been a fool neither frankly, father nor father, I … are combinations of words since their meanings are detached and do not unite them, which is marked orally by intonation and often graphically by punctuation marks.
On the other hand, some words may be inserted between the components of a word-combination without breaking it.

Compare,

a) read books

b) read many books

c) read very many books.

In case (a) the combination read books is uninterrupted.In cases (b) and (c) it is interrupted, or discontinuous(read… books).

The combinability of words depends on their lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical meanings. It is owing to the lexical meanings of the corresponding lexemes that the word wise can be combined with the words man, act, saying and is hardly combinable with the words milk, area, outline.

The lexico-grammatical meanings of -er in singer (a noun) and -ly in beautifully (an adverb) do not go together and prevent these words from forming a combination, whereas beautiful singer and sing beautifully are regular word-combinations.

The combination * students sings is impossible owing to the grammatical meanings of the corresponding grammemes.

Thus one may speak of lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical combinability, or the combinability of lexemes, grammemes and parts of speech.
The mechanism of combinability is very complicated. One has to take into consideration not only the combinability of homogeneous units, e. g. the words of one lexeme with those of another lexeme. A lexeme is often not combinable with a whole class of lexemes or with certain grammemes.
For instance, the lexeme few, fewer, fewest is not combinable with a class of nouns called uncountables, such as milk, information, hatred, etc., or with members of ‘singular’ grammemes (i. e. grammemes containing the meaning of ‘singularity’, such as book, table, man, boy, etc.).
The ‘possessive case’ grammemes are rarely combined with verbs, barring the gerund. Some words are regularly combined with sentences, others are not.

It is convenient to distinguish right-hand and left-hand connections. In the combination my hand (when written down) the word my has a right-hand connection with the word hand and the latter has a left-hand connection with the word my.

With analytical forms inside and outside connections are also possible. In the combination has often written the verb has an inside connection with the adverb and the latter has an outside connection with the verb.

It will also be expedient to distinguish unilateral, bilateral and multilateral connections. By way of illustration we may say that the articles in English have unilateral right-hand connections with nouns: a book, the child. Such linking words as prepositions, conjunctions, link-verbs, and modal verbs are characterized by bilateral connections: love of life, John and Mary, this is John, he must come. Most verbs may have zero

(Come!), unilateral (birds fly), bilateral (I saw him) and multilateral (Yesterday I saw him there) connections. In other words, the combinability of verbs is variable.

One should also distinguish direct and indirect connections. In the combination Look at John the connection between look and at, between at and John are direct, whereas the connection between look and John is indirect, through the preposition at.
2. Lexical and grammatical valency. Valency and collocability. Relationships between valency and collocability. Distribution.
The appearance of words in a certain syntagmatic succession with particular logical, semantic, morphological and syntactic relations is called collocability or valency.

Valency is viewed as an aptness or potential of a word to have relations with other words in language. Valency can be grammatical and lexical.

Collocability is an actual use of words in particular word-groups in communication.
The range of the Lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. Though the verbs ‘lift’ and ‘raise’ are synonyms, only ‘to raise’ is collocated with the noun ‘question’.

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is different, cf. English ‘pot plants’ vs. Russian ‘комнатные цветы’.
The interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy:

• the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups, e.g. heavy, adj. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’ is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc., but one cannot say *heavy cheese or *heavy sausage;

• different meanings of a word may be described through its lexical valency, e.g. the different meanings of heavy, adj. may be described through the word-groups heavy weight / book / table; heavy snow / storm / rain; heavy drinker / eater; heavy sleep / disappointment / sorrow; heavy industry / tanks, and so on.

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word.
Grammatical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures. Its range is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical, e.g.:

• the verbs suggest and propose can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan / a resolution); however, it is only propose that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.);

• the adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adj. + Prep. at +Noun(clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.

• The individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be described through its grammatical valency, e.g. keen + Nas in keen sight ‘sharp’; keen + on + Nas in keen on sports ‘fond of’; keen + V(inf)as in keen to know ‘eager’.
Lexical context determines lexically bound meaning; collocations with the polysemantic words are of primary importance, e.g. a dramatic change / increase / fall / improvement; dramatic events / scenery; dramatic society; a dramatic gesture.
In grammatical context the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context serves to determine the meanings of a polysemantic word, e.g. 1) She will make a good teacher. 2) She will make some tea. 3) She will make him obey.
Distribution is understood as the whole complex of contexts in which the given lexical unit(word) can be used. Есть даже словари, по которым можно найти валентные слова для нужного нам слова — так и называются дистрибьюшн дикшенери
3. What is a word combination? Types of word combinations. Classifications of word-groups.
Word combination — a combination of two or more notional words serving to express one concept. It is produced, not reproduced in speech.

Types of word combinations:

1. Semantically:
   1. free word groups (collocations) — a year ago, a girl of beauty, take lessons;
   2. set expressions (at last, point of view, take part).
2. Morphologically (L.S. Barkhudarov):
   1. noun word combinations, e.g.: nice apples (BBC London Course);
   2. verb word combinations, e.g.: saw him (E. Blyton);
   3. adjective word combinations, e.g.: perfectly delightful (O. Wilde);
   4. adverb word combinations, e.g.: perfectly well (O, Wilde);
   5. pronoun word combinations, e.g.: something nice (BBC London Course).
3. According to the number of the components:
   1. simple — the head and an adjunct, e.g.: told me (A. Ayckbourn)
   2. Complex, e.g.: terribly cold weather (O. Jespersen), where the adjunct cold is expanded by means of terribly.

Classifications of word-groups:

1. through the order and arrangement of the components:

• a verbal — nominal group (to sew a dress);

• a verbal — prepositional — nominal group (look at something);

1. by the criterion of distribution, which is the sum of contexts of the language unit usage:

• endocentric, i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group (blue sky);

• exocentric, i.e. having no central member (become older, side by side);

1. according to the headword:

• nominal (beautiful garden);

• verbal (to fly high);

• adjectival (lucky from birth);

1. according to the syntactic pattern:

• predicative (Russian linguists do not consider them to be word-groups);

• non-predicative — according to the type of syntactic relations between the components:

(a) subordinative (modern technology);

(b) coordinative (husband and wife).

4. What is “a free word combination”? To what extent is what we call a free word combination actually free? What are the restrictions imposed on it?
A free word combination is a combination in which any element can be substituted by another.

The general meaning of an ordinary free word combination is derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements

Ex. To come to one’s sense –to change one’s mind;

To fall into a rage – to get angry.

Free word-combinations are word-groups that have a greater semantic and structural independence and freely composed by the speaker in his speech according to his purpose.

A free word combination or a free phrase permits substitution of any of its elements without any semantic change in the other components.
5. Clichе´s (traditional word combinations).
A cliché is an expression that is trite, worn-out, and overused. As a result, clichés have lost their original vitality, freshness, and significance in expressing meaning. A cliché is a phrase or idea that has become a “universal” device to describe abstract concepts such as time (Better Late Than Never), anger (madder than a wet hen), love (love is blind), and even hope (Tomorrow is Another Day). However, such expressions are too commonplace and unoriginal to leave any significant impression.

Of course, any expression that has become a cliché was original and innovative at one time. However, overuse of such an expression results in a loss of novelty, significance, and even original meaning. For example, the proverbial phrase “when it rains it pours” indicates the idea that difficult or inconvenient circumstances closely follow each other or take place all at the same time. This phrase originally referred to a weather pattern in which a dry spell would be followed by heavy, prolonged rain. However, the original meaning is distanced from the overuse of the phrase, making it a cliché.

Some common examples of cliché in everyday speech:

• My dog is dumb as a doorknob. (тупой как пробка)
• The laundry came out as fresh as a daisy.
• If you hide the toy it will be out of sight, out of mind. (с глаз долой, из сердца вон)

Examples of Movie Lines that Have Become Cliché:

• Luke, I am your father. (Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back)
• i am Groot. (Guardians of the Galaxy)
• I’ll be back. (The Terminator)
• Houston, we have a problem. (Apollo 13)

Some famous examples of cliché in creative writing:

• It was a dark and stormy night
• Once upon a time
• There I was
• All’s well that ends well
• They lived happily ever after

6. The sociolinguistic aspect of word combinations.
Lexical valency is the possibility of lexicosemantic connections of a word with other word

Some researchers suggested that the functioning of a word in speech is determined by the environment in which it occurs, by its grammatical peculiarities (part of speech it belongs to, categories, functions in the sentence, etc.), and by the type and character of meaning included into the semantic structure of a word.

Words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combinations with other words. The words that surround a particular word in a sentence or paragraph are called the verbal context of that word.
7. Norms of lexical valency and collocability in different languages.
The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability. The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. This is only natural since every language has its syntagmatic norms and patterns of lexical valency. Words, habitually collocated, tend to constitute a cliché, e.g. bad mistake, high hopes, heavy sea (rain, snow), etc. The translator is obliged to seek similar cliches, traditional collocations in the target-language: грубая ошибка, большие надежды, бурное море, сильный дождь /снег/.

The key word in such collocations is usually preserved but the collocated one is rendered by a word of a somewhat different referential meaning in accordance with the valency norms of the target-language:

• trains run — поезда ходят;
• a fly stands on the ceiling — на потолке сидит муха;
• It was the worst earthquake on the African continent (D.W.) — Это было самое сильное землетрясение в Африке.
• Labour Party pretest followed sharply on the Tory deal with Spain (M.S.1973) — За сообщением о сделке консервативного правительства с Испанией немедленно последовал протест лейбористской партии.

Different collocability often calls for lexical and grammatical transformations in translation though each component of the collocation may have its equivalent in Russian, e.g. the collocation «the most controversial Prime Minister» cannot be translated as «самый противоречивый премьер-министр».

«Britain will tomorrow be welcoming on an official visit one of the most controversial and youngest Prime Ministers in Europe» (The Times, 1970). «Завтра в Англию прибывает с официальным визитом один из самых молодых премьер-министров Европы, который вызывает самые противоречивые мнения».

«Sweden’s neutral faith ought not to be in doubt» (Ib.) «Верность Швеции нейтралитету не подлежит сомнению».

The collocation «documentary bombshell» is rather uncommon and individual, but evidently it does not violate English collocational patterns, while the corresponding Russian collocation — документальная бомба — impossible. Therefore its translation requires a number of transformations:

«A teacher who leaves a documentary bombshell lying around by negligence is as culpable as the top civil servant who leaves his classified secrets in a taxi» (The Daily Mirror, 1950) «Преподаватель, по небрежности оставивший на столе бумаги, которые могут вызвать большой скандал, не менее виновен, чем ответственный государственный служащий, забывший секретные документы в такси».
8. Using the data of various dictionaries compare the grammatical valency of the words worth and worthy; ensure, insure, assure; observance and observation; go and walk; influence and влияние; hold and держать.

Worth & Worthy
Worth is used to say that something has a value: • Something that is worth a certain amount of money has that value; • Something that is worth doing or worth an effort, a visit, etc. is so attractive or rewarding that the effort etc. should be made. Valency: Worth + N: worth a lot of money; Worth + Ving: worth making; [it] + V-ing: it would be worth asking him [it] + Ν V-ing: it’s not really worth me voting Worth + N + to N: worth money to me [it] + Ν + for Ν to-INF (rare): it would be worth for you to know	Worthy: • If someone or something is worthv of something, they deserve it because they have the qualities required; • If you say that a person is worthy of another person you are saying that you approve of them as a partner for that person. Valency: Attributive: worthy candidate, worthy cause; Predicative: equally worthy + to-INF: worthy to be + of N/V-ing: worthy of closer examination.

Ensure, insure, assure
Ensure means ‘make certain that something happens’. Valency: + Np: ensure fairness + (that)-CLp.it: Ensure that there is adequate humidity in heated rooms + Np + Ν: does not ensure women a place at center stage + Np + for Ν: to ensure good fishing for everyone.	Insure — make sure Valency: + Np: insure continuation; + (that)-CLp.it: insure that future generations; + Np + Νp: They will not insure us victory; + Np + for Ν: insure items for replacement.	Assure: • to tell someone confidently that something is true, especially so that they do not worry; • to cause something to be certain. Valency: +N: assure the owner; + (that)-CL: assure him (that) the car will be ready; + by N: has been assured by the reviews

Observance & Observation
Observance: • the act of obeying a law or following a religious custom: religious observances such as fasting • a ceremony or action to celebrate a holiday or a religious or other important event: [ C ] Memorial Day observances [ U ] Financial markets will be closed Monday in observance of Labor Day.	Observation: • the act of observing something or someone; • the fact that you notice or see something; • a remark about something that you have noticed. Valency: + of: observation of human behaviour; Under +: keeping under observation; For +: to be admitted for observation; + on/about: interesting observations on the nature; to make +: may I make an observation.

Go & Walk
	Walk can mean ‘move along on foot’: • A person can walk an animal, i.e. exercise them by walking. • A person can walk another person somewhere , i.e. take them there, • A person can walk a particular distance or walk the streets. Valency: + Np: walk the dog; +ADJ: made us walk tall again; + into Np: to walk into a controversy; +over Np: to walk over me; ADVP-prep: to walk away/through/away N + ADV: We had to walk three kilometers to the river. Np + ADV: Can I walk you home? ADJ + ADV: it was like walking barefoot in the sand

Influence & Влияние
Influence: • A person can have influence (a) over another person or a group, i.e. be able to directly guide the way they behave, (b) with a person, i.e. be able to influence them because they know them well. • Someone or something can have or be an influence on or upon something or someone, i.e. be able to affect their character or behaviour in some way Valency: the UN is having difficulty exerting its influence; [the] + to-INF: the influence to lead the world + on N/wh-CL: influence on the work of the late 19th-century French avant-garde. + over Ν: Union influence over Labour + upon Ν: Its influence upon female physiology + with Ν: to use their influence with the PLO leadership	Влияние — Действие, оказываемое кем-, чем-либо на кого-, что-либо. Сочетаемость: Прил +: значительное влияние + сущ: влияние среды Сущ +: сферы влияния; Гл +: оказывать влияние.

Hold & Держать
Hold: • to take and keep something in your hand or arms; • to support something; • to contain or be able to contain something; • to keep someone in a place so that they cannot leave. Valency: ADJ +: tight hold; V +: take/keep hold; + on: his hold on her; + OBJ + ADJ: hold the door open; + OBJ + N: hold him hostage	Держать — взять в руки/рот/зубы и т.д. и не давать выпасть Сочетаемость: Сущ +: ноги держат + сущ: держать себя в руках, держать дистанцию.

1. Contrastive Analysis. Give words of the same root in Russian; compare their valency:

Chance	Шанс
+ to-INF: a chance to win; + (that)-CL: a chance that BA might co-operate; + for N/V-ing: chance for peace/regaining; + of N/V-ing /of Ν V-ing: no chance of her accepting; + for Ν + to-INF: a chance for me to show	Прил +: большой шанс; + сущ: шанс спасения; Сущ +: множество шансов; + гл: шанс даётся Гл +: дать шанс, оценить свой шанс
Situation	Ситуация
As a noun: bland situation, sort of situation; + that-CL: the situation that I was pregnant; + wh-CL: the situation when you open the door; + of N/V-ing: a situation of anarchy; + with Ν: situation with your husband.	Прил +: чрезвычайная ситуация; + сущ: ситуация общения; Сущ +: изменение ситуации; Гл +: оценить ситуацию; + гл: ситуация повторилась.
Partner	Партнёр
с глаголом be, become, create: to become a partner существительным live, business: business partner	Прил +: деловой партнёр; + сущ: партнёр фирмы; Сущ +: смена партнёра; Гл +: найти партнёра; + гл: партнёр решает.
Surprise	Сюрприз
to experience surprise (сочетаемость существительных:) to show surprise (сочетаемость существительных:) to cause no surprise (сочетаемость существительных:) to surprise smb (Глагольные словосочетания) to take smb by surprise (Глагольные словосочетания)	Прил +: небольшой сюрприз; Сущ +: масса сюрпризов; Гл +: сделать сюрприз; + гл: сюрприз удался.
Risk	Риск
As a noun: good risk; + that-CL: the risk that goods go; + for Ν/[at] + for N/V-ing: the risk for the investor; + from N/V-ing: risk from pets; + in N/V-ing: risk in flying south; + of N/V-ing / of Ν V-ing: the risk of crushing; + to Ν: a risk to our health; +for N + to-INF: a risk for Jim to bury Mary there.	Прил +: большой риск; + сущ: риск заражения; Сущ +: группа риска; Гл +: учитывать риск; + гл: риск возрастает.
Instruction	Инструкция
on the instruction of smb (сочетаемость существительных:) сочетаемость глаголов to make, to create.	Прил +: подробная инструкция; + сущ: инструкция пользователя; Сущ +: получение инструкции; Гл +: следовать инструкции; + гл: инструкция требовала.
Satisfaction	Сатисфакция
with satisfaction (сочетаемость существительных:) to cause satisfaction (сочетаемость существительных:) unique satisfaction (сочетаемость существительных:) total satisfaction (сочетаемость существительных:) personal satisfaction (сочетаемость существительных:)	Прил +: полная сатисфакция; Гл +: получить сатисфакцию;
Business	Бизнес
[it/no] + to-INF: He’ll make it his business to find out; [it/no] + V-ing: no business poking their noses; + of N/V-ing: the business of intervention; + with Ν: business with the players	Прил +: семейный бизнес; + сущ: бизнес отца; Сущ +: развитие бизнеса; Гл +: вести бизнес; + гл: бизнес растёт.
Manager	Менеджер
to see the manager (Глагольные словосочетания) He was promoted to manager. (Глагольные словосочетания) to apply to the manager (Глагольные словосочетания) to approach the manager about this matter (Глагольные словосочетания) The guests asked for the manager. (Глагольные словосочетания)	Прил +: старший менеджер; + сущ: менеджер группы; Сущ +: должность менеджера; Гл +: стать менеджером; + гл: менеджер сообщил.
Challenge	Челлендж
challenge to smb (фразеологические сочетания прилагательных с предлогами: господство/ подчинение/давление) challenge to smb (фразеологические сочетания прилагательных с предлогами:угрозы/насмешка/донос) challenge to a fight (фразеологические сочетания прилагательных с предлогами:список глаголов, требующих за собой предлог) to accept smb’s challenge (Глагольные словосочетания) to challenge a report (сочетаемость существительных:)	Прил +: новый челлендж; Гл +: продолжить челлендж; Сущ +: день челленджа.

10. From the lexemes in brackets choose the correct one to go with each of the synonyms given below:

1. Write a short definition based on the clues you find in context for the italicized words in the sentence. Check your definitions with the dictionary.

Sentence	Meaning
The method of reasoning from the particular to the general — the inductive method — has played an important role in science since the time of Francis Bacon.	The way of learning or investigating from the particular to the general that played an important role in the time of Francis Bacon
Most snakes are meat eaters, or carnivores.	Animals whose main diet is meat
A person on a reducing diet is expected to eschew most fatty or greasy foods.	deliberately avoid
After a hectic year in the city, he was glad to return to the peace and quiet of the country.	full of incessant or frantic activity.
Darius was speaking so quickly and waving his arms around so wildly, it was impossible to comprehend what he was trying to say.	grasp mentally; understand.to perceive
The babysitter tried rocking, feeding, chanting, and burping the crying baby, but nothing would appease him.	to calm down someone
It behooves young ladies and gentlemen not to use bad language unless they are very, very angry.	necessary
The Academy Award is an honor coveted by most Hollywood actors.	The dream about some achievements
In the George Orwell book 1984, the people’s lives are ruled by an omnipotent dictator named “Big Brother.”	The person who have a lot of power
After a good deal of coaxing, the father finally acceded to his children’s request.	to Agree with some request
He is devoid of human feelings.	Someone have the lack of something
This year, my garden yielded several baskets full of tomatoes.	produce or provide
It is important for a teacher to develop a rapport with his or her students.	good relationship