What type of word is concept

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas. They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks underlying principles, thoughts and beliefs.^[1]
They play an important role in all aspects of cognition.^[2][3] As such, concepts are studied by several disciplines, such as linguistics, psychology, and philosophy, and these disciplines are interested in the logical and psychological structure of concepts, and how they are put together to form thoughts and sentences. The study of concepts has served as an important flagship of an emerging interdisciplinary approach called cognitive science.^[4]

In contemporary philosophy, there are at least three prevailing ways to understand what a concept is:^[5]

• Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the mind (mental objects)
• Concepts as abilities, where concepts are abilities peculiar to cognitive agents (mental states)
• Concepts as Fregean senses, where concepts are abstract objects, as opposed to mental objects and mental states

Concepts can be organized into a hierarchy, higher levels of which are termed «superordinate» and lower levels termed «subordinate». Additionally, there is the «basic» or «middle» level at which people will most readily categorize a concept.^[6] For example, a basic-level concept would be «chair», with its superordinate, «furniture», and its subordinate, «easy chair».

Concepts may be exact, or inexact.^[7]
When the mind makes a generalization such as the concept of tree, it extracts similarities from numerous examples; the simplification enables higher-level thinking.
A concept is instantiated (reified) by all of its actual or potential instances, whether these are things in the real world or other ideas.

Concepts are studied as components of human cognition in the cognitive science disciplines of linguistics, psychology, and philosophy, where an ongoing debate asks whether all cognition must occur through concepts. Concepts are regularly formalized in mathematics, computer science, databases and artificial intelligence. Examples of specific high-level conceptual classes in these fields include classes, schema or categories. In informal use the word concept often just means any idea.

Ontology of concepts[edit]

A central question in the study of concepts is the question of what they are. Philosophers construe this question as one about the ontology of concepts—what kind of things they are. The ontology of concepts determines the answer to other questions, such as how to integrate concepts into a wider theory of the mind, what functions are allowed or disallowed by a concept’s ontology, etc. There are two main views of the ontology of concepts: (1) Concepts are abstract objects, and (2) concepts are mental representations.^[8]

Concepts as mental representations[edit]

The psychological view of concepts[edit]

Within the framework of the representational theory of mind, the structural position of concepts can be understood as follows: Concepts serve as the building blocks of what are called mental representations (colloquially understood as ideas in the mind). Mental representations, in turn, are the building blocks of what are called propositional attitudes (colloquially understood as the stances or perspectives we take towards ideas, be it «believing», «doubting», «wondering», «accepting», etc.). And these propositional attitudes, in turn, are the building blocks of our understanding of thoughts that populate everyday life, as well as folk psychology. In this way, we have an analysis that ties our common everyday understanding of thoughts down to the scientific and philosophical understanding of concepts.^[9]

The physicalist view of concepts[edit]

In a physicalist theory of mind, a concept is a mental representation, which the brain uses to denote a class of things in the world. This is to say that it is literally, a symbol or group of symbols together made from the physical material of the brain.^[10][11] Concepts are mental representations that allow us to draw appropriate inferences about the type of entities we encounter in our everyday lives.^[11] Concepts do not encompass all mental representations, but are merely a subset of them.^[10] The use of concepts is necessary to cognitive processes such as categorization, memory, decision making, learning, and inference.^[12]

Concepts are thought to be stored in long term cortical memory,^[13] in contrast to episodic memory of the particular objects and events which they abstract, which are stored in hippocampus. Evidence for this separation comes from hippocampal damaged patients such as patient HM. The abstraction from the day’s hippocampal events and objects into cortical concepts is often considered to be the computation underlying (some stages of) sleep and dreaming. Many people (beginning with Aristotle) report memories of dreams which appear to mix the day’s events with analogous or related historical concepts and memories, and suggest that they were being sorted or organized into more abstract concepts. («Sort» is itself another word for concept, and «sorting» thus means to organize into concepts.)

Concepts as abstract objects[edit]

The semantic view of concepts suggests that concepts are abstract objects. In this view, concepts are abstract objects of a category out of a human’s mind rather than some mental representations.^[8]

There is debate as to the relationship between concepts and natural language.^[5] However, it is necessary at least to begin by understanding that the concept «dog» is philosophically distinct from the things in the world grouped by this concept—or the reference class or extension.^[10] Concepts that can be equated to a single word are called «lexical concepts».^[5]

The study of concepts and conceptual structure falls into the disciplines of linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science.^[11]

In the simplest terms, a concept is a name or label that regards or treats an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence, such as a person, a place, or a thing. It may represent a natural object that exists in the real world like a tree, an animal, a stone, etc. It may also name an artificial (man-made) object like a chair, computer, house, etc. Abstract ideas and knowledge domains such as freedom, equality, science, happiness, etc., are also symbolized by concepts. It is important to realize that a concept is merely a symbol, a representation of the abstraction. The word is not to be mistaken for the thing. For example, the word «moon» (a concept) is not the large, bright, shape-changing object up in the sky, but only represents that celestial object. Concepts are created (named) to describe, explain and capture reality as it is known and understood.

A priori concepts[edit]

Kant maintained the view that human minds possess pure or a priori concepts. Instead of being abstracted from individual perceptions, like empirical concepts, they originate in the mind itself. He called these concepts categories, in the sense of the word that means predicate, attribute, characteristic, or quality. But these pure categories are predicates of things in general, not of a particular thing. According to Kant, there are twelve categories that constitute the understanding of phenomenal objects. Each category is that one predicate which is common to multiple empirical concepts. In order to explain how an a priori concept can relate to individual phenomena, in a manner analogous to an a posteriori concept, Kant employed the technical concept of the schema. He held that the account of the concept as an abstraction of experience is only partly correct. He called those concepts that result from abstraction «a posteriori concepts» (meaning concepts that arise out of experience). An empirical or an a posteriori concept is a general representation (Vorstellung) or non-specific thought of that which is common to several specific perceived objects (Logic, I, 1., §1, Note 1)

A concept is a common feature or characteristic. Kant investigated the way that empirical a posteriori concepts are created.

The logical acts of the understanding by which concepts are generated as to their form are:

1. comparison, i.e., the likening of mental images to one another in relation to the unity of consciousness;
2. reflection, i.e., the going back over different mental images, how they can be comprehended in one consciousness; and finally
3. abstraction or the segregation of everything else by which the mental images differ …

In order to make our mental images into concepts, one must thus be able to compare, reflect, and abstract, for these three logical operations of the understanding are essential and general conditions of generating any concept whatever. For example, I see a fir, a willow, and a linden. In firstly comparing these objects, I notice that they are different from one another in respect of trunk, branches, leaves, and the like; further, however, I reflect only on what they have in common, the trunk, the branches, the leaves themselves, and abstract from their size, shape, and so forth; thus I gain a concept of a tree.

— Logic, §6

Embodied content[edit]

In cognitive linguistics, abstract concepts are transformations of concrete concepts derived from embodied experience. The mechanism of transformation is structural mapping, in which properties of two or more source domains are selectively mapped onto a blended space (Fauconnier & Turner, 1995; see conceptual blending). A common class of blends are metaphors. This theory contrasts with the rationalist view that concepts are perceptions (or recollections, in Plato’s term) of an independently existing world of ideas, in that it denies the existence of any such realm. It also contrasts with the empiricist view that concepts are abstract generalizations of individual experiences, because the contingent and bodily experience is preserved in a concept, and not abstracted away. While the perspective is compatible with Jamesian pragmatism, the notion of the transformation of embodied concepts through structural mapping makes a distinct contribution to the problem of concept formation.^{[citation needed]}

Realist universal concepts[edit]

Platonist views of the mind construe concepts as abstract objects.^[14] Plato was the starkest proponent of the realist thesis of universal concepts. By his view, concepts (and ideas in general) are innate ideas that were instantiations of a transcendental world of pure forms that lay behind the veil of the physical world. In this way, universals were explained as transcendent objects. Needless to say, this form of realism was tied deeply with Plato’s ontological projects. This remark on Plato is not of merely historical interest. For example, the view that numbers are Platonic objects was revived by Kurt Gödel as a result of certain puzzles that he took to arise from the phenomenological accounts.^[15]

Sense and reference[edit]

Gottlob Frege, founder of the analytic tradition in philosophy, famously argued for the analysis of language in terms of sense and reference. For him, the sense of an expression in language describes a certain state of affairs in the world, namely, the way that some object is presented. Since many commentators view the notion of sense as identical to the notion of concept, and Frege regards senses as the linguistic representations of states of affairs in the world, it seems to follow that we may understand concepts as the manner in which we grasp the world. Accordingly, concepts (as senses) have an ontological status.^[8]

Concepts in calculus[edit]

According to Carl Benjamin Boyer, in the introduction to his The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development, concepts in calculus do not refer to perceptions. As long as the concepts are useful and mutually compatible, they are accepted on their own. For example, the concepts of the derivative and the integral are not considered to refer to spatial or temporal perceptions of the external world of experience. Neither are they related in any way to mysterious limits in which quantities are on the verge of nascence or evanescence, that is, coming into or going out of existence. The abstract concepts are now considered to be totally autonomous, even though they originated from the process of abstracting or taking away qualities from perceptions until only the common, essential attributes remained.

Notable theories on the structure of concepts[edit]

Classical theory[edit]

The classical theory of concepts, also referred to as the empiricist theory of concepts,^[10] is the oldest theory about the structure of concepts (it can be traced back to Aristotle^[11]), and was prominently held until the 1970s.^[11] The classical theory of concepts says that concepts have a definitional structure.^[5] Adequate definitions of the kind required by this theory usually take the form of a list of features. These features must have two important qualities to provide a comprehensive definition.^[11] Features entailed by the definition of a concept must be both necessary and sufficient for membership in the class of things covered by a particular concept.^[11] A feature is considered necessary if every member of the denoted class has that feature. A feature is considered sufficient if something has all the parts required by the definition.^[11] For example, the classic example bachelor is said to be defined by unmarried and man.^[5] An entity is a bachelor (by this definition) if and only if it is both unmarried and a man. To check whether something is a member of the class, you compare its qualities to the features in the definition.^[10] Another key part of this theory is that it obeys the law of the excluded middle, which means that there are no partial members of a class, you are either in or out.^[11]

The classical theory persisted for so long unquestioned because it seemed intuitively correct and has great explanatory power. It can explain how concepts would be acquired, how we use them to categorize and how we use the structure of a concept to determine its referent class.^[5] In fact, for many years it was one of the major activities in philosophy—concept analysis.^[5] Concept analysis is the act of trying to articulate the necessary and sufficient conditions for the membership in the referent class of a concept.^{[citation needed]} For example, Shoemaker’s classic «Time Without Change» explored whether the concept of the flow of time can include flows where no changes take place, though change is usually taken as a definition of time.^{[citation needed]}

Arguments against the classical theory[edit]

Given that most later theories of concepts were born out of the rejection of some or all of the classical theory,^[14] it seems appropriate to give an account of what might be wrong with this theory. In the 20th century, philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Rosch argued against the classical theory. There are six primary arguments^[14] summarized as follows:

• It seems that there simply are no definitions—especially those based in sensory primitive concepts.^[14]
• It seems as though there can be cases where our ignorance or error about a class means that we either don’t know the definition of a concept, or have incorrect notions about what a definition of a particular concept might entail.^[14]
• Quine’s argument against analyticity in Two Dogmas of Empiricism also holds as an argument against definitions.^[14]
• Some concepts have fuzzy membership. There are items for which it is vague whether or not they fall into (or out of) a particular referent class. This is not possible in the classical theory as everything has equal and full membership.^[14]
• Experiments and research showed that assumptions of well defined concepts and categories might not be correct. Researcher Hampton^[16]asked participants to differentiate whether items were in different categories. Hampton did not conclude that items were either clear and absolute members or non-members. Instead, Hampton found that some items were barely considered category members and others that were barely non-members. For example, participants considered sinks as barely members of kitchen utensil category, while sponges were considered barely non-members, with much disagreement among participants of the study. If concepts and categories were very well defined, such cases should be rare. Since then, many researches have discovered borderline members that are not clearly in or out of a category of concept.
• Rosch found typicality effects which cannot be explained by the classical theory of concepts, these sparked the prototype theory.^[14] See below.
• Psychological experiments show no evidence for our using concepts as strict definitions.^[14]

Prototype theory[edit]

Prototype theory came out of problems with the classical view of conceptual structure.^[5] Prototype theory says that concepts specify properties that members of a class tend to possess, rather than must possess.^[14] Wittgenstein, Rosch, Mervis, Berlin, Anglin, and Posner are a few of the key proponents and creators of this theory.^[14][17] Wittgenstein describes the relationship between members of a class as family resemblances. There are not necessarily any necessary conditions for membership; a dog can still be a dog with only three legs.^[11] This view is particularly supported by psychological experimental evidence for prototypicality effects.^[11] Participants willingly and consistently rate objects in categories like ‘vegetable’ or ‘furniture’ as more or less typical of that class.^[11][17] It seems that our categories are fuzzy psychologically, and so this structure has explanatory power.^[11] We can judge an item’s membership of the referent class of a concept by comparing it to the typical member—the most central member of the concept. If it is similar enough in the relevant ways, it will be cognitively admitted as a member of the relevant class of entities.^[11] Rosch suggests that every category is represented by a central exemplar which embodies all or the maximum possible number of features of a given category.^[11] Lech, Gunturkun, and Suchan explain that categorization involves many areas of the brain. Some of these are: visual association areas, prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and temporal lobe.

The Prototype perspective is proposed as an alternative view to the Classical approach. While the Classical theory requires an all-or-nothing membership in a group, prototypes allow for more fuzzy boundaries and are characterized by attributes.^[18] Lakoff stresses that experience and cognition are critical to the function of language, and Labov’s experiment found that the function that an artifact contributed to what people categorized it as.^[18] For example, a container holding mashed potatoes versus tea swayed people toward classifying them as a bowl and a cup, respectively. This experiment also illuminated the optimal dimensions of what the prototype for «cup» is.^[18]

Prototypes also deal with the essence of things and to what extent they belong to a category. There have been a number of experiments dealing with questionnaires asking participants to rate something according to the extent to which it belongs to a category.^[18] This question is contradictory to the Classical Theory because something is either a member of a category or is not.^[18] This type of problem is paralleled in other areas of linguistics such as phonology, with an illogical question such as «is /i/ or /o/ a better vowel?» The Classical approach and Aristotelian categories may be a better descriptor in some cases.^[18]

Theory-theory[edit]

Theory-theory is a reaction to the previous two theories and develops them further.^[11] This theory postulates that categorization by concepts is something like scientific theorizing.^[5] Concepts are not learned in isolation, but rather are learned as a part of our experiences with the world around us.^[11] In this sense, concepts’ structure relies on their relationships to other concepts as mandated by a particular mental theory about the state of the world.^[14] How this is supposed to work is a little less clear than in the previous two theories, but is still a prominent and notable theory.^[14] This is supposed to explain some of the issues of ignorance and error that come up in prototype and classical theories as concepts that are structured around each other seem to account for errors such as whale as a fish (this misconception came from an incorrect theory about what a whale is like, combining with our theory of what a fish is).^[14] When we learn that a whale is not a fish, we are recognizing that whales don’t in fact fit the theory we had about what makes something a fish. Theory-theory also postulates that people’s theories about the world are what inform their conceptual knowledge of the world. Therefore, analysing people’s theories can offer insights into their concepts. In this sense, «theory» means an individual’s mental explanation rather than scientific fact. This theory criticizes classical and prototype theory as relying too much on similarities and using them as a sufficient constraint. It suggests that theories or mental understandings contribute more to what has membership to a group rather than weighted similarities, and a cohesive category is formed more by what makes sense to the perceiver. Weights assigned to features have shown to fluctuate and vary depending on context and experimental task demonstrated by Tversky. For this reason, similarities between members may be collateral rather than causal.^[19]

Ideasthesia[edit]

According to the theory of ideasthesia (or «sensing concepts»), activation of a concept may be the main mechanism responsible for the creation of phenomenal experiences. Therefore, understanding how the brain processes concepts may be central to solving the mystery of how conscious experiences (or qualia) emerge within a physical system e.g., the sourness of the sour taste of lemon.^[20] This question is also known as the hard problem of consciousness.^[21][22] Research on ideasthesia emerged from research on synesthesia where it was noted that a synesthetic experience requires first an activation of a concept of the inducer.^[23] Later research expanded these results into everyday perception.^[24]

There is a lot of discussion on the most effective theory in concepts. Another theory is semantic pointers, which use perceptual and motor representations and these representations are like symbols.^[25]

Etymology[edit]

The term «concept» is traced back to 1554–60 (Latin conceptum – «something conceived»).^[26]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

• Concept at PhilPapers
• Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). «Concepts». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Concept at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
• «Concept». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• «Theory–Theory of Concepts». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• «Classical Theory of Concepts». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Blending and Conceptual Integration
• Concepts. A Critical Approach, by Andy Blunden
• Conceptual Science and Mathematical Permutations
• Concept Mobiles Latest concepts
• v:Conceptualize: A Wikiversity Learning Project
• Concept simultaneously translated in several languages and meanings
• TED-Ed Lesson on ideasthesia (sensing concepts)

A concept is a thought or idea. Concept was borrowed from Late Latin conceptus, from Latin concipere “to take in, conceive, receive.” A concept is an idea conceived in the mind. The original meaning of the verb conceive was to take sperm into the womb, and by a later extension of meaning, to take an idea into the mind.

What is the adjective form of concept?

conceptual. Of, or relating to concepts or mental conception; existing in the imagination. Of or relating to conceptualism.

Is Concept an adjective?

adjective. functioning as a prototype or model of new product or innovation: a concept car,a concept phone.

What is the adverb of concept?

conceivably. In a conceivable manner, possibly.

What are the 3 ways in explaining a concept?

1. Definition – It is a method of identifying a given term and making its meaning clearer: its main purpose is to clarify and explain concepts, ideas, and issues. Definition can be presented in 3 ways: informal, formal, or extended.

How do you explain a concept?

8 simple ideas for concept development and explanation

1. Understand your audience.
2. Define your terms.
3. Classify and divide your concept into ‘chunks’
4. Compare and contrast.
5. Tell a story or give an example to illustrate the process or concept.
6. Illustrate with examples.
7. Show Causes or Effects.
8. Compare new concepts to familiar ones.

What is Concept elucidation?

: to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis elucidate a text. intransitive verb. : to give a clarifying explanation.

What is a concept paragraph?

The conceptual paragraph is defined as a group of rhetorically related concepts developing a generalization to form a coherent and complete unit of discourse and consisting of one or more traditional physical paragraphs.

What are good concepts to write about?

Fictional Things To Write About

• 1 Get inspired by a song.
• 2 Reinvent a childhood memory.
• 3 Write about a person you see every day but don’t really know.
• 4 If your pet were a person . . .
• 5 Write about what you wanted to be when you grew up.
• 6 Grab a writing prompt to go.

How do you write a one word essay?

Your Task: Write an essay around a single word that defines your book.

1. STEP ONE: Choose your word.
2. STEP TWO: Look up the definition of the word.
3. STEP THREE: Search for your word in the text.
4. STEP FOUR: Look at your evidence and definitions and match them up.
5. STEP FIVE: Write your essay.

What is a good topic?

A good topic sentence is specific enough to give a clear sense of what to expect from the paragraph, but general enough that it doesn’t give everything away. You can think of it like a signpost: it should tell the reader which direction your argument is going in.

What to write when you are bored?

Things to Write About When Bored – 365+ Writing Prompts

• A Movie Review. Did you recently watch a movie?
• Look Outside the Window. Look outside your window.
• List of Things You’ll Never Do Again.
• Traveling Story.
• Your Comfort Food.
• Love Letter.
• A Long Lost Friend.
• Eye Contact.

What should I write about today?

Things to Write About Today

• Write about what you love about your life right now.
• Write a list of words for each of your senses.
• Write about a lifestyle you can barely imagine.
• Write about spending a day in the house of your dreams.
• Write a world with no characters.
• Write an ode to the floor.

What to write when you dont know what to write?

So, here are eleven things to write about when you don’t know what to write about.

• Ask, ‘What’s hot right now?
• Teach readers how to do something.
• Steal from competitors.
• Read forums in your industry.
• Write a sequel to a previous popular post.
• Use a keyword planner.
• Write about your biggest mistake.

What do you write to someone you don’t know?

Ok, usually when writing an important letter to a person you don’t know (and you don’t know whether the person is a man or a woman) you should start your letter with: Dear Sir/Madam, or Dear Sir or Madam, If you know the name of the person you are writing to, always use their surname.

What should I write about myself?

26 Writing Prompts About Yourself

• What is something you are good at doing?
• What is your favorite color and why?
• What is the story behind your name?
• Which country do you want to visit and why?
• What is your favorite cartoon?
• What do you want to be when you grow up and why?
• What is your favorite thing about school?

What is the verb form of concept?

conceive. (transitive) To develop an idea; to form in the mind; to plan; to devise; to originate.

Is concept a noun or adjective?

noun. a general notion or idea; conception.

Is concept a noun or verb?

noun. noun. /ˈkɑnsɛpt/ an idea or a principle that is connected with something abstract concept (of something) the concept of social class concepts such as “civilization” and “government” He can’t grasp the basic concepts of mathematics.

What is a concept example?

In the simplest terms, a concept is a name or label that regards or treats an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence, such as a person, a place, or a thing. For example, the word “moon” (a concept) is not the large, bright, shape-changing object up in the sky, but only represents that celestial object.

What are the two types of concept?

Two Kinds of Concept: Implicit and Explicit.

What are the types of concept?

In this lesson, we’ll explore what a concept is and the three general levels of concepts: superordinate, basic, and subordinate.

How do you explain an idea clearly?

10 ways to explain things more effectively

1. #1: Keep in mind others’ point of view.
2. #2: Listen and respond to questions.
3. #3: Avoid talking over people’s head.
4. #4: Avoid talking down to people.
5. #5: Ask questions to determine people’s understanding.
6. #6: Focus on benefits, not features.
7. #7: Use analogies to make concepts clearer.

What’s another word for concept?

Some common synonyms of concept are conception, idea, impression, notion, and thought.

What is the antonym of concept?

Antonyms: actuality, fact, reality, substance. Synonyms: apprehension, archetype, belief, conceit, conception, design, fancy, fantasy, idea, ideal, image, imagination, impression, judgment, model, notion, opinion, pattern, plan, purpose, sentiment, supposition, theory, thought.

What are the two simplest and commonest words in English?

Top 100 words

Rank	Word
1	the
2	be
3	to
4	of

What is another word for ideas?

Some common synonyms of idea are conception, concept, impression, notion, and thought.

What are the examples of ideas?

The definition of an idea is a thought, belief, opinion or plan. An example of idea is a chef coming up with a new menu item. An opinion or belief. Something, such as a thought or conception, that is the product of mental activity.

What is a creative idea?

A creative idea is the result of two or more notions coming together in the mind in order to create an all new notion; a creative idea, which in turn becomes a useful notion for future creative ideas.

How do you write an idea?

Write down your ideas as fast as possible. Find the essence of your content. Revise your content to build on your key idea. Edit sentence by sentence.

What are some ideas to write about?

What are interesting topics to write about?

Narrative Writing

• A cozy spot at home.
• A day at the beach.
• A day in the desert.
• A funny time in my family.
• A great day with a friend.
• A great place to go.
• A great treehouse.
• A helpful person I have met.

What are good topics to write about?

Interesting Topics to Write About

• Identify a moment in your life that made you feel like you had superpowers.
• How have you handled being the “new kid” in your lifetime?
• When you’re feeling powerful, what song best motivates you?
• What is your spirit animal?
• Dear Me in 5 Years…
• How has water impacted your life?

What is the best topic for students?

Essay Topics for Students from 6th, 7th, 8th Grade

• Noise Pollution.
• Patriotism.
• Health.
• Corruption.
• Environment Pollution.
• Women Empowerment.
• Music.
• Time and Tide Wait for none.

Which topic is best for project?

The Best Capstone Project Topic Ideas

• Information Technology.
• Computer Science.
• MBA.
• Accounting.
• Management.
• Education.
• Engineering.
• Marketing.

What should I write daily?

Recap: 6 Journaling Ideas

• Write down your goals every day.
• Keep a daily log.
• Journal three things you’re grateful for every day.
• Journal your problems.
• Journal your stresses.
• Journal your answer to “What’s the best thing that happened today?” every night before bed.

How do you start writing a habit?

How to Develop a Daily Writing Habit in 10 Steps

1. First, set up a writing space.
2. Start each day by journaling.
3. Set a word count goal.
4. Set aside writing time every single day, without exception.
5. Don’t start with a blank page if you can help it.
6. Include brainstorming sessions in your writing process.

What is a good journal topic?

Ok, without further ado, here are those topics for journaling writers of all ages!…Topics for Journal Writing

• What is the most beautiful thing you’ve ever seen?
• Have you ever been in love?
• What is the hardest truth you’ve ever learned?
• What is your greatest dream in life?
• Does history repeat itself?

What is an adverb and examples of an adverb?

An adverb is a word that modifies (describes) a verb (he sings loudly), an adjective (very tall), another adverb (ended too quickly), or even a whole sentence (Fortunately, I had brought an umbrella). Adverbs often end in -ly, but some (such as fast) look exactly the same as their adjective counterparts.

Where do adverbs go in a sentence?

middle

What type of adverb is down?

Down can be used in the following ways: as a preposition (followed by a noun): She was walking down the street. as an adverb (without a following noun): She lay down and fell asleep. after the verb ‘to be’: Oil prices are down.

Is faster a adverb?

Faster can be a noun, an adverb or an adjective.

What type of speech is while?

While is a word in the English language that functions both as a noun and as a subordinating conjunction.

What is the verb form of while?

whiled; whiling. Definition of while (Entry 4 of 4) transitive verb.

How long is a while?

The study has discovered “a while” estimates a length of 4 months whereas “a little while” would be a little less at 3 months’ time. Going a little further, “a while back” would indicate the potential of occurring up to 8 months in the past.

What is a short while?

adjective. If something is short or lasts for a short time, it does not last very long.

What is a while in minutes?

For a 13-year-old male, we found a while would vary from 25 seconds to about 40 seconds. For a 30-year-old mother of four, we found that a while was just about 45 minutes.

What does give me a bit mean?

Give me a bit is informal or casual way of saying “give me some time” or “give me extra time”

How do you use a while in a sentence?

Example Sentences

1. I will be able to sit with you for a while, but I need to get home soon.
2. You can stay with us for a while until you are back on your feet.
3. He stayed with them awhile.
4. Please sit awhile, we will be leaving for the movie very soon.
5. We also stayed in Japan for a while during our trip to China.

What do you mean by for a while?

Adv. 1. for a while – for a short time; “sit down and stay awhile”; “they settled awhile in Virginia before moving West”; “the baby was quiet for a while” awhile.

For those interested in a little info about this site: it’s a side project that I developed while working on Describing Words and Related Words. Both of those projects are based around words, but have much grander goals. I had an idea for a website that simply explains the word types of the words that you search for — just like a dictionary, but focussed on the part of speech of the words. And since I already had a lot of the infrastructure in place from the other two sites, I figured it wouldn’t be too much more work to get this up and running.

The dictionary is based on the amazing Wiktionary project by wikimedia. I initially started with WordNet, but then realised that it was missing many types of words/lemma (determiners, pronouns, abbreviations, and many more). This caused me to investigate the 1913 edition of Websters Dictionary — which is now in the public domain. However, after a day’s work wrangling it into a database I realised that there were far too many errors (especially with the part-of-speech tagging) for it to be viable for Word Type.

Finally, I went back to Wiktionary — which I already knew about, but had been avoiding because it’s not properly structured for parsing. That’s when I stumbled across the UBY project — an amazing project which needs more recognition. The researchers have parsed the whole of Wiktionary and other sources, and compiled everything into a single unified resource. I simply extracted the Wiktionary entries and threw them into this interface! So it took a little more work than expected, but I’m happy I kept at it after the first couple of blunders.

Special thanks to the contributors of the open-source code that was used in this project: the UBY project (mentioned above), @mongodb and express.js.

Currently, this is based on a version of wiktionary which is a few years old. I plan to update it to a newer version soon and that update should bring in a bunch of new word senses for many words (or more accurately, lemma).

The term «concept» has entered the conceptual apparatus of cognitive science, semantics, linguoculturology. The period of approval of the term in science is necessarily associated with a certain blurring of boundaries, the arbitrariness of its use, mixing with terms that are close in meaning and/or language form [1].

Currently, there is no clear and precise definition of the term «concept», since it covers several areas at once: cognitive science, semantics and linguoculturology. This term is similar to other similar terms in language form. The main task is to give a precise and clear definition that would include all aspects of the term «concept».

There are many points of view on what a concept is.

The well-known linguist S. A. Askoldov defines it as a mental formation that replaces an indefinite set of objects of the same kind in the process of thought [2]. According to S. A. Askold, the concept can be a substitute for some aspects of the subject or real actions, such as the concept of «justice», and can also be a substitute for various kinds of at least very precise, but purely mental functions. These are, for example, mathematical concepts [3]. S. A. Askoldov focuses his attention on the fact that the substitutive role of concepts in the field of thought, in General, coincides in its purpose and meaning with various kinds of substitutive functions in the field of real life relations, and there are a lot of such substitutions in the life sphere [4]. The scientist talks a lot about the nature of cognitive concepts. Figuratively speaking, he says about the concept that these are the buds of the most complex inflorescences of mental concreteness [5]. It should also be mentioned about the concept of cognition. S. A. Askoldov argues that the concept of cognition is always related to some multiple objectivity-ideal or real [6]. He defines the word as an organic part of the concept [7].

Other scientists give different definitions.

Such well-known scientists as Z. D. Popova and I. A. Sternin define the concept as » a discrete mental formation that is the basic unit of the human thought code, has a relatively ordered internal structure, is the result of cognitive (cognitive) activity of the individual and society and carries complex, encyclopedic information about the reflected object or phenomenon, the interpretation of this information by public consciousness and the attitude of public consciousness to this

phenomenon or object» [8].R. M. Frumkina notes that the concept is the object of conceptual analysis, the meaning of which is «to trace the path of cognition of the meaning of the concept and write the result in a formalized semantic language» [9]. Conceptual analysis is research for which the concept is the object of analysis. The meaning of conceptual analysis is essentially knowledge of the concept, i.e. the concept is knowledge about an object from the world of reality. A. p. Babushkin in the monograph » Types of concepts in lexical and phraseological semantics

language » considers concepts as structures of knowledge representation. He understands the concept «as any discrete content unit of collective consciousness, reflecting the object of the real or ideal world, stored in the national memory of native speakers in the form of a recognized substrate. The concept is verbalized, denoted by a word, otherwise its existence is impossible» [10].

«Concept» and «concept» are not equal, as V. N. Telia notes in his works. She believes that » the change of the term «concept» to the term «concept»is not just a terminological replacement: a concept is always knowledge structured in a frame, which means that it reflects not just the

essential features of the object, but all those that are filled with knowledge about the essence in a given language team.» «Concepts, stereotypes, standards, symbols, mythologems, etc. – signs of national and – more broadly-universal culture» [11].

His explanation of the terms «concept» and «concept» and gave Yu. s. Stepanov, who believes that the concept and notion of the terms of different Sciences; the concept is used mainly in logic and philosophy, and the term «concept» as a term in mathematical logic, in the last

time entrenched in the science of culture, in cultural studies .

Yu. s. Stepanov, while considering the concept as a fact of culture, identifies three components, or three «layers» concept:

1) the main, actual feature;

2) additional, or several additional, «passive» signs that are

already irrelevant, » historical»;

3) an internal form, usually not at all conscious, imprinted in an external, verbal form [13].

In modern research, the analysis of the concept of» concept » is conducted in two directions:

1. on the epistemology of the concept (from the point of view of the origin of the concept and its «location», as well as its relationship with reality and forms of its manifestation).

2. on the typology of concepts (from the point of view of a certain science (discipline), taking into account its conceptual apparatus and its needs in this term).

The concept is a mental unit, an element of consciousness. Human consciousness is the intermediary between the real world and language. The consciousness receives cultural information, it is filtered, processed, systematized: «Concepts form ‘a kind of cultural layer mediating between man and the world’ «[4].

According to V. V. Kolesov, «concept grain permasmile, semantic «fetus» word»; «Concept and therefore becoming a reality racemase, figuratively this word that really exists, just as there is language, the phoneme, the morpheme and the other, already identified by science «noumena» plan of content, for every culture is vital. A concept is something that is not subject to change in the semantics of a word sign, which, on the contrary, directs the thought of speakers of a given language, determining their choice and creating the potential possibilities of language-speech.»

And unlike image, symbol, concept «concept is not expanded in any question, for it was he – and the starting point, and the completion of the process at a new level of semantic development in the language; it is the source of universal meaning that is available in multiple forms and values».

To describe the concept word in sociopolitical discourse, first of all, it is necessary to use complex lexicography based on the data of more than one dictionary, with the obligatory involvement of the latest dictionaries. As noted by A. G. Berdnikova, «dictionary of the description of lexical units

they refer to the language picture of the world, they describe the building blocks from which the language picture of the world, in fact, is formed. They reflect the linguistic mentality of native speakers of a particular natural language.» But «explanatory dictionaries partly show the degree of representation of the concept in the minds of native speakers: what is the set, the hierarchy of semantic components that they consist of» [5].

The following structure is proposed By S. G. Vorkachev. It identifies the composition of the linguocultural concept three components: conceptual, reflecting his traits and definitionsfactory, shaped, fixing cognitive metaphors that support the concept in the linguistic consciousness, and znachimostnoy-defined location, which takes the name of a concept in lexical and grammatical system of a particular language, which will also include its etymological and associative characteristics .

According To V. I. Karasik, the concept consists of three components – conceptual, figurative and value . He believes that the cultural concept in the language consciousness is a multidimensional network of meanings that are expressed by lexical, phraseological, paremiological units, precedent texts, etiquette formulas, as well as speech-behavioral tactics that reflect repeated fragments of social life.

Meaning is, according To G. p. Shchedrovitsky, «the General correlation and connection of all phenomena related to the situation» [8]. It is always situational, conditioned by context, belongs to speech and is primary in relation to meaning, which, in turn, is non-contextual, non-situational, belongs to language, is derived from meaning, is socially institutionalized and formulated, in contrast to the meanings created by everyone and everyone, exclusively by compilers of dictionaries [10].

In «Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary» the term «concept» vocabulary independent article are not presented, but the value is disclosed in the article «Concept» and «concept» as a synonym marked with a number in parentheses: «the Concept (concept) is a phenomenon of the same order, what is the meaning of the word, but seen in a slightly different system of relations; the value in the language system, the concept – in the system of logical relations and forms, as studied in linguistics and in logic» [11].

Activity of the individual and society and carrying complex, encyclopedic information about the reflected object or phenomenon, about the interpretation of this information by the public consciousness and the attitude of public consciousness to this phenomenon or object.

This definition is very voluminous. Therefore, we will adhere to the point of view of S. A. Askold, who understands the concept as a mental formation that replaces an indefinite set of objects of the same kind in the process of thought.

So, summing up all of the above, we came to the following conclusions:

The terms «concept» and» concept » are not identical.

The term «concept» is used mainly in logic and philosophy.

The concept is a unit of collective consciousness that sends to the highest spiritual values, has a linguistic expression and is marked by ethno-cultural specifics.

REFERENCES

Karasik V. I. YAzykovoj krug: lichnost’, koncepty. Diskurs [Language circle: personality, concepts. Discourse]. M. Gnosis. 2004. P. 75.

Askoldov S. A. Koncept i slovo [Concept and the word]// Russkaya slovesnost’. Ot teorii slovesnosti k strukture teksta. Antologiya – Russian literature. From theory of literature to the structure of the text. The anthology / under the editorship of V. P. Neroznak. M. Academia 1997. P. 269.

Popova Z. D., Sternin I. A. Semantiko-kognitivnyj analiz yazyka [Semantic-cognitive analysis of language]. Voronezh. 2006. P. 24.

Frumkina R. M. Konceptual’nyj analiz s tochki zreniya lingvista i psihologa [Conceptual analysis from the point of view of the linguist and psychologist] // Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informaciya – Scientific and technical information. 1992. Ser. 2. No. 3

Babushkin A. P. Tipy konceptov v leksiko-frazeologicheskoj semantike yazyka, ih lichnostnaya i nacional’naya specifika [Types of concepts in lexico-phraseological semantics of the language, their personal and national features]. Voronezh. 2006. P. 29.

Stepanov Y. S. Konstanty: slovar’ russkoj kul’tury [Constants: dictionary of Russian culture]. M. «Academic project». 2001. P. 43.

Arutyunova N. D. Vvedenie [Introduction] // Logicheskij analiz yazyka. Mental’nye dejstviya – Logic analysis of language. Mental steps. M. Nauka. 1993. Pp. 3-6.

Shchedrovitsky G. P. Smysl i znachenie [Meaning and significance]// Shchedrovitsky G. P. Selected works. M. 1995. Pp. 546-576.

Vorkachev S. G. Bezrazlichie kak ehtnosemanticheskaya harakteristika lichnosti: opyt sopostavitel’noj paremiologii [Indifference as ethnosemantic characteristic of the individual: the experience of comparative paremiology] // VYA. 1997, No. 4, pp. 115-124.

Demyankov V. Z. Ponyatie i koncept v hudozhestvennoj literature i v nauchnom yazyke [Notion and concept in literature and in scientific language] // Voprosy filologii – Questions of Philology. 2001, No. 1, pp. 35– 47.

Kolesov V. V. Filosofiya russkogo slova [Philosophy of Russian words]. St. Petersburg. 2002. Pp. 50-51

• The grammatical meaning

• The lexical meaning.

They
are found in all words.

The
interrelation of these 2 types of meaning may be different in
different groups of words.

GRAMMATICAL
M-NG:

We
notice, that word-forms, such as: girls,
winters, joys, tables,
etc. though denoting widely different objects of reality have
something in common. This common element is the
grammatical meaning of plurality, which
can be found in all of them.

Gram.
m-ng may be defined as the component of meaning recurrent in
identical sets of individual form of different words, as, e.g., the
tense meaning in the word-forms of verb (asked,
thought, walked,
etc) or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (girl’s,
boy’s,
night’s,
etc).

In
a broad sense it may be argued that linguists, who make a distinction
between lexical and grammatical meaning are, in fact, making a
distinction between the functional [linguistic] meaning, which
operates at various levels as the interrelation of various linguistic
units and referential [conceptual] meaning as the interrelation of
linguistic units and referents [or concepts].

In
modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some elements of
grammatical meaning can be identified by the position of the
linguistic unit in relation to other linguistic units, i.e. by its
distribution. Word-forms speaks,
reads, writes
have one and the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in
identical distribution, e.g. only after the pronouns he,
she, it
and before adverbs like well,
badly, to-day,
etc.

It
follows that a certain component of the meaning of a word is
described when you identify it as a part of speech, since different
parts of speech are distributionally different.

{
the grammatical m-hg will be different for different forms of 1 word
and vice verse, various verbs may have 1 gr. m-ng}

LEXICAL
M-NG:

Comparing
word-forms of one and the same word we observe that besides gram.
meaning, there is another component of meaning to be found in them.
Unlike the gram. m-ng this component is identical in all the forms of
the word. Thus, e.g. the word-forms go,
goes,
went,
going, gone
possess different gram. m-ng of tense, person and so on, but in each
of these forms we find one and the same semantic component denoting
the process of movement. This is the lexical m-ng of the word, which
may be described as the component of m-ng proper to the word as a
linguistic unit, i.e. recurrent in all the forms of this word.

The
difference between the lexical and the grammatical components of
meaning is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts
underlying the 2 types of meaning, but rather in the way they are
conveyed. The concept of plurality, e.g., may be expressed by the
lexical m-ng of the word plurality;
it
may also be expressed in the forms of various words irrespective of
their lexical m-ng, e.g.
boys, girls, joys,
etc. The concept of relation may be expressed by the lexical m-ng of
the word relation
and also by any of prepositions, e.g.
in, on, behind,
etc. ( the
book is in/on,
behind
the table ).

It
follows that by lexical m-ng we designate the m-ng proper to the
given linguistic unit in all its forms and distributions, while by
grammatical m-ng we designate the m-ng proper to sets of word-forms
common to all words of a certain class. Both the lexical and the
grammatical m-ng make up the word-meaning as neither can exist
without the other.

Lex.
m-ng is not homogenous either and may be analysed as including the
number of aspects. We define 3 aspects:

• denotational

• сonnotational

• pragmatic
  aspects.

a)
It is that part of lex. m-ng, the function of which is to name the
thing, concepts or phenomenon which it denotes. It’s the component
of L. m-ng, which establishes correspondence between the name and the
object. (den. m-ng – that component which makes communication
possible).

e.g.
Physict knows more about the atom than a singer does, or that an
arctic explorer possesses a much deeper knowledge of what artic ice
is like than a man who has never been in the North. Nevertheless they
use the words atom,
Artic,
etc. and understand each other.

It
insures reference to things common to all the speakers of given
language.

b)
The second component of the l. m-ng comprises the stylistic reference
and emotive charge proper to the word as a linguistic unit in the
given language system. The connot. component – emotive charge and
the stylistic value of the word. It reflects the attitude of the
speaker towards what he is speaking about. This aspect belongs to the
language system.

c)
Prag. aspect – that part of the L. m-ng, which conveys information
on the situation of communication.

It
can be divided into:

—
inf-ion on the time and space relationship of communication.

Some
inf-ion may be conveyed through the m-ng of the word itself.

To
come – to go [space relationship]

To
be hold – 17^th
cent [time relationship]

—
inf-ion on the participant of communication or on this particular
language community.

e.g.
They chuked a stone at the cops’ and then did a bunk with the
loot. [ criminal speaking]

After
casting a stone at the police they escaped with the money. [ chief
inspector speaking]

—
inf-ion on the character of discourse [social or family codes]

e.g.
stuff – rubbish

(
Stuff — it’ll hardly be used by strangers, by smb. talking to
boss)

—
inf-ion on the register of communication.

e.g.
com-ion : — formal (to anticipate, to aid, cordoal)

—
informal (stuff, shut up, cut it off)

—
neutral ( you must be kidding) – ?

Meaning
is a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or
relations that makes part of the linguistic sign —
its
so-called inner facet, whereas the sound-form functions as its outer
facet.

Grammatical
meaning
is defined as the expression in Speech of relationships between
words. The grammatical meaning is more abstract and more generalised
than the lexical meaning. It is recurrent in identical sets of
individual forms of different words as the meaning of plurality in
the following words students,
boob, windows, compositions.

Lexical
meaning.
The definitions of lexical meaning given by various authors, though
different in detail, agree in the basic principle: they all point out
that lexical meaning is the realisation of concept or emotion by
means of a definite language system.

1. The
   component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, i.e.
   recurrent in all the forms of this word and in all possible
   distributions of these forms. /
   Ginzburg
   R.S., Rayevskaya N.N. and others.

2. The
   semantic invariant of the grammatical variation of a word / Nikitin
   M.V./.

3. The
   material meaning of a word, i.e. the meaning of the main material
   part of the word which reflects the concept the given word expresses
   and the basic properties of the thing (phenomenon, quality, state,
   etc.) the word denotes. /Mednikova E.M./.

Denotation.
The conceptual content of a word is expressed in its denotative
meaning. To denote is to serve as a linguistic expression for a
concept or as a name for an individual object. It is the denotational
meaning that makes communication possible.

Connotation
is the pragmatic communicative value the word receives depending on
where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what
contexts
it may be used. There are four main types of connotations stylistic,
emotional, evaluative and expressive or intensifying.

Stylistic
connotations is what the word conveys about the speaker’s attitude to
the social circumstances and the appropriate functional style (slay
vs
kill),
evaluative
connotation may show his approval or disapproval of the object spoken
of
(clique vs
group),
emotional
connotation conveys the speaker’s emotions (mummy
vs
mother),
the
degree of intensity (adore
vs
love)
is
conveyed by expressive or intensifying connotation.

The
interdependence of connotations with denotative meaning is also
different for different types of connotations. Thus, for instance,
emotional connotation comes into being on the basis of denotative
meaning but in the course of time may substitute it by other types of
connotation with general emphasis, evaluation and colloquial
stylistic overtone. E.g. terrific
which
originally meant ‘frightening’ is now a colloquialism meaning ‘very,
very good’ or ‘very great’: terrific
beauty, terrific pleasure.

The
orientation toward the subject-matter, characteristic of the
denotative meaning, is substituted here by pragmatic orientation
toward speaker and listener; it is not so much what is spoken about
as the attitude to it that matters.

Fulfilling
the significative
and the communicative functions
of the word the denotative meaning is present in every word and may
be regarded as the central factor in the functioning of language.

The
expressive function
of the language (the speaker’s feelings) and the pragmatic
function
(the effect of words upon listeners) are rendered in connotations.
Unlike the denotative meaning, connotations are optional.

Connotation
differs from the
implicational meaning
of the word. Implicational meaning is the implied information
associated with the word, with what the speakers know about the
referent. A wolf is known to be greedy and cruel (implicational
meaning) but the denotative meaning of this word does not include
these features. The denotative
or the intentional meaning of the
word wolf
is
«a
wild animal resembling a dog that kills sheep and sometimes even
attacks men». Its figurative meaning is derived from implied
information, from what we know about wolves —
«a
cruel greedy person», also the adjective wolfish means «greedy».

Билет
№ 15. (Полисемия.
Понятие семантической структуры слова)

Polysemy
is characteristic of most words in many languages, however different
they may be. But it is mere characteristic of the English voc-ry as
compared with Russian, due to the monosyllabic character of English
and the predominance of root words. Only few words in English have
one meaning except terms (oxygen). All the other words in are
polysemantic, i.e. have more than one meaning. The tendency here
works both ways. The more widely a word is used, the more meanings it
has to have (to go – 70 meanings). Different meanings of a
polysemantic word make up the lexical semantic
structure of a word.
The meanings themselves are called the lexical semantic variants of a
word. It’s not just a list of lexical semantic meanings. There is a
special correspondence between the meanings of one and the same word.
The correlation between the meanings corresponds to one of the same
sound-form and forms a unity of meanings which is known as a semantic
structure of a word.

Polysemy
is very characteristic of the English vocabulary due to the
monosyllabic character of English words and the predominance of root
words The greater the frequency of the word, the greater the number
of meanings that constitute its semantic structure. Frequency —
combinability
—
polysemy
are closely connected. A special formula known as «Zipf’s
law» has been worked out to express the correlation between
frequency, word length and polysemy: the shorter the word, the higher
its frequency of use; the higher the frequency, the wider its
combinability ,
i.e.
the more word combinations it enters; the wider its combinability,
the more meanings are realised in these contexts.

The
word in one of its meanings is termed a
lexico-semantic
variant
of this word. For example the word table
has
at least 9
lexico-semantic
variants:

1
A
piece of furniture

2.
The
persons seated at table

3.
The food put on a table

1. A
   thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood

2. A
   slab of stone

3. Plateau,
   extensive area
   of
   high land

4. An
   orderly arrangement of facts, etc.

The
problem in polysemy is that of interrelation of different
lexico-semantic variants. There may be no single semantic component
common to all lexico-semantic variants but every variant has
something in common with at least one of the others.

All
the lexico-semantic variants of a word taken together form its
semantic
structure or semantic paradigm.

The
word
face, for
example, according to the dictionary data has the following semantic
structure:

1. The
   front part of the head: He
   fell on his face,

2. Look,
   expression: a
   sad face, smiling faces, she is a good judge of faces.

3. Surface,
   facade:.face
   of a clock, face of a building, He laid his cards face down.

4. fig.
   Impudence, boldness, courage; put
   a good/brave/ boldface on smth, put a new face on smth, the face of
   it, have the face to do,
   save
   one’s face.

5. Style
   of typecast for printing: bold-face
   type.

In
polysemy we are faced with the problem of interrelation and
interdependence of various meanings in the semantic structure of one
and the same word.

No
general or complete scheme of types of lexical meanings as elements
of a word’s semantic structure has so far been accepted by linguists.
There are various points of view. The following terms may be found
with different authors: direct /
figurative,
other oppositions are: main /
derived;
primary /
secondary;
concrete/ abstract; central/ peripheral; general/ special; narrow /
extended
and so on.

Meaning
is direct
when it nominates the referent without the help of a context, in
isolation; meaning is figurative
when the referent is named and at the same time characterised through
its similarity with other objects, e.g. tough
meat —
direct
meaning, tough
politician —
figurative
meaning. Similar examples are: head
—
head
of a cabbage, foot -foot of a mountain, face —
put
a new face on smth

Differentiation
between the terms primary
/
secondary
main /
derived
meanings
is connected with two approaches to polysemy: diachronic
and synchronic. ‘

If
viewed diachronically
polysemy, is understood as the growth and development (or change) in
the semantic structure of the word.

The
meaning the word table
had
in Old English is the meaning «a flat slab of stone or wood».
It was its primary meaning, others were secondary and appeared
later. They had been derived from the primary meaning.

Synchronically
polysemy is understood as the coexistence of various meanings of the
same word at a certain historical period of the development of the
English language. In that case the problem of interrelation and
interdependence of individual meanings making up the semantic
structure of the word must be investigated from different points of
view, that of main/ derived, central /peripheric meanings.

An
objective criterion of determining the main or central meaning is
the frequency of its occurrence in speech. Thus, the main meaning of
the word table
in
Modern English is «a piece of furniture».

Polysemy
is a phenomenon of language, not of speech. But the question arises:
wouldn’t it interfere with the communicative process ?

As
a rule the contextual meaning represents only one of the possible
lexico-semantic variants of the word. So polysemy does not interfere
with the communicative function of the language because the
situation and the context cancel all the unwanted meanings, as in
the following sentences: The
steak is tough This is a tough problem Prof. Holborn is a tough
examiner.

Билет
№ 16. (Семантическая
структура слова в синхронном и диахронном
рассмотрении)

If
polysemy
is viewed diachronically,
it is understood as the growth and development of or, in general, as
a change in the semantic structure of the word. Polysemy in
diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning
or meanings and at the same time acquire one or sev­eral new
ones. In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the
polysemantic word table we find that of all the meanings it has in
Modern English, the primary meaning is ‘a flat slab of stone or
wood’ which is proper to the word in the Old English period; all
other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary
meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning. The
terms secondary and derived meaning are to a certain extent
synonymous. When we describe the meaning of the word as «sec­ondary»
we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning
was in existence. When we refer to the meaning as «derived»
we imply not only that, but also that it is dependent on the primary
meaning and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the word
table, e.g., we may say that the meaning ‘the food put on the table’
is a seconda­ry meaning as it is derived from the meaning ‘a
piece of furniture (on which meals are laid out)’.
It
follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic
structure of the word.
Polysemy
may also arise from homonymy. When two words become identical in
sound-form, the meanings of the two words are felt as making up one
semantic structure. Thus, the human ear and the ear of corn are from
the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically
related to
L. auris,
the other to L.
acus,
aceris. Synchronically,
however, they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same
word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type
(cf. the eye of the needle, the foot of the mountain) and
consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor
meanings of the polysemantic word ear.

Synchronically
we understand polysemy
as
the coexistence of various meanings
of
the same word at a certain historical period of the development of
the English language. In connection with the polysemantic word table
discussed
above we are mainly concerned with the following problems: are all
the nine mean­ings equally representative of the semantic
structure of this word? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that
first occurs to us whenever we hear or see the word table,
is
‘an
article of furniture’. This emerges as the basic or the central
meaning of the word and all other meanings are minor in comparison.
It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning occurs in various
and widely different contexts, minor meanings are observed only in
cer­tain contexts, e.g. ‘to keep the table amused’, ‘table of
contents’ and so on. Thus we can assume that the meaning ‘a piece of
furniture’ occupies the central place in the semantic structure of
the word table.
As
to other meanings of this word we find it hard to grade them in
order of their com­parative value.

A
more objective criterion of the comparative value of individual
meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in speech.
There is a tendency in modern linguistics to interpret the concept
of the central meaning in terms of the frequency of occurrence of
this meaning. In a study of five million words made by a group of
linguistic scientists it was found that the frequency value of
individual meanings is different. As far as the word table
is
concerned the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ possesses the highest
frequency value and makes up 52% of all the uses of this word, the
meaning ‘an orderly arrangement of facts’ (table of contents)
accounts for 35%, all other meanings between them make up just 13%
of the uses of this word.

Of
great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a
polysemantic word as individual meanings may differ in their
stylistic reference. Stylistic (or regional) status of monosemantic
words is easily perceived. For instance the word daddy can be
referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the word parent to the
bookish. Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent.
The poly­semantic words worker and hand, e.g., may both denote
‘a man who does manual work’, but whereas this is the most frequent
and stylistically neutral meaning of the word worker.

Different
meanings of a polysemantic word make up the lexical semantic
structure of a word. The meanings themselves are called the
lexical semantic variants
of a word. It’s not just a list of lexical semantic meanings.
There is a special correspondence between the meanings of one and
the same word. The correlation between the meanings corresponds to
one of the same sound-form and forms a unity of meanings which is
known as a
semantic structure of a word.

Change
of word meaning. (Semantic changes)

Extension
(widening of meaning). The extension of semantic capacity of a word,
i.e. the expansion of polysemy in the course of its historical
development, e.g. manuscript
originally
«smth hand-written».

Narrowing
of meaning. The restriction of the semantic capacity of a word in
the historical development, e.g. meat
in
OE meant «food and drink».

Elevation
(or amelioration). The semantic change in the word which rises it
from humble beginning to a position of greater importance, e.g.
minister
in
earlier times meant merely «a servant».

Degradation
(or_degeri.eration).
The semantic change, by which, for one reason or another, a word
falls into disrepute, or acquires some derogatory emotive charge,
e.g. silly
originally
meant «happy».

The
change in the denotational component brings about the extension or
the restriction of meaning. The change in the connotational
component may result in the degradation —
pejorative
or ameliorative development of meaning.

Metaphor.
The transfer of name based on the association of similarity. It is
the application of a name or a descriptive term to an object to
which it is not literally applicable, e.g. head
of an army, eye of a needle.

Metonymy.
The transfer of name based on the association of contiguity. It is a
universal device in which the name of one thing is changed for that
of another, to which it is related by association of ideas, as
having close relationship to one another, e.g. the
chair may
mean «the chairman», the
bar -«the
lawyers».

Semasiology
is a branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words and
word equivalents. The main objects of semasiological study are as
follows: types of lexical meaning, polysemy and semantic structure
of words, semantic development of words, the main tendencies of the
change of word-meanings, semantic grouping in the vocabulary system,
i.e. synonyms, antonyms, semantic fields, thematic groups, etc.

Referential
approach
to meaning. The common feature of any referential approach is that
meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent (object
of reality denoted by the word). The meaning is formulated by
establishing the interdependence between words and objects of
reality they denote. So, meaning is often understood as an object or
phenomenon in the outside world that is referred to by a word.

Functional
approach to meaning.
In most present-day methods of lexicological analysis words are
studied in context; a word is defined by its functioning within a
phrase or a sentence. This functional approach is attempted in
contextual analysis, semantic syntax and some other branches of
linguistics. The meaning of linguistic unit is studied only through
its relation to other linguistic units. So meaning is viewed as the
function of a word in speech.

Meaning
and concept (notion).
When examining a word one can see that its meaning though closely
connected with the underlying concept is not identical with it.

To
begin with, concept is a category of human cognition. Concept is the
thought of the object that singles out the most typical, the most
essential features of the object.

So
all concepts are almost the same for the whole of humanity in one
and the same period of its historical development. The meanings of
words, however, are different in different languages. That is to
say, words expressing identical
concept
may have different semantic structures in different languages. E.g.
the concept of «a building for human habitation» is
expressed in English by the word «house», in Ukrainian —
«дім», but
their meanings are not identical as house
does
not possess the meaning of «fixed residence of family or
household» (домівка)
which
is part of the meaning of the Ukrainian word дiм;
it
is expressed by another English word home.

The
difference between meaning and concept can also be observed by
comparing synonymous words and word-groups expressing the same
concept but possessing linguistic meaning which is felt as different
in each of the units, e.g. big,
large; to die to pass away, to join the majority, to kick the
bucket; child, baby, babe, infant.

Concepts
are always emotionally neutral as they are a category of thought.
Language, however, expresses all possible aspects of human
consciousness. Therefore the meaning of many words not only conveys
some reflection of objective reality but also the speaker’s attitude
to what he is speaking about, his state of mind. Thus, though the
synonyms big,
large, tremendous denote
the same concept of size, the emotive charge of the word tremendous
is
much heavier than that of the other word.

Билет
№ 17
(Типы значений многозначного слова в
современном английском языке.)

Different
meanings of a polysemantic word make up the lexical semantic
structure of a word. The meanings themselves are called the
lexical semantic variants
of a word. The
majority of words in any language have more than one meaning.

Vinogradov:
the meaning of a word can be:

1.
Nominative.

2.
Nominative- derivative

3.Collegationally
and collocationally conditioned.

4.
Phraseologically bound.

1. Nominative
   is the basic meaning of a word.

2. Nominative-Derivative
   meaning comes into being when the word is “stretched out”
   semantically to cover new facts and extra linguistic phenomena.

When
the speaker uses the word metaphorically he extends its content to
cover new bits of reality.

The
metaphorical use is based on certain similarities observed by the
speaker.

Sweet not
only taste, but pleasant, attractive
— Sweet face, voice, little baby.

Here
we speak about different meanings- because the difference in
meanings is not great enough to split the word into 2 different
units. Metaphoric meanings are registered in dictionaries.

For
parts of the body: Hand-
рука,стрелка
часов face-лицо,
циферблат
часов
(of a clock)

Foot—
нога,подножие горы leg—
нога, ножка стула

Tongue-язык,
языки пламени eye-глаз,
ушко иголки (~of
a
needle)

If
nominative meaning is a direct meaning: Nominative-Derivative
meaning is a transfered meaning.

3. Collegiationally
and collocationally
conditioned
meanings are not free, but bound.

1. Collegationally
   conditioned meaning is determined by gramatical
   combinability of words. Some meanings are realized only without a
   given gramatical pattern (collegation)

to
tell- рассказать, сказать:
in passive constructions means to order/to direct: You
must do what you’re told.

to
carry- нести:
in
passive construction= to accept: The
amendment to the bill was carried.

1. Collocationally
   conditioned meaning is determined by lexical
   combinability of words.

There
are meaning which depend on the word association with other words
(collocation)

A
herd of cows, a flock of sheep

Collocation
is used here as a typical behavior of a word in speech.

Mccarthy:
Collocation is a marriage contract between words, some words are
more firmly married to each other than others.

4.
Phraseologically
bound
meaning.

Collocations
should be distinguished from idioms and phraseological units.

Idioms
and phraseological units are devoid of referential meanings.

The
meanings of the individual words can’t be summed together to
produce the meaning of the idiomatic expression.

to
kick the bucket = to die —
This idiom is opaque (непрозрачный)
протянуть
ноги

to
pass the buck = to pass the responsibility
—This
idiom is semiopaque. (buck — фишка,
указывающая
кому
сдавать
( в
покере
)

to
see the light = to understand
— This idiom is transparent (ясный).

Билет
№ 18. (Понятие
контекста. Типы контекста. Полисемия
и
контекст.)

A
full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can
be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the
word is used, i.e. from the study of the intralingulstic relations of
words in the flow of speech. The term context
is the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning
of the word. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have
meanings only in the context. The semantic structure of the word has
an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodies
dialectical permanency and variability. The context individualises
the meanings, brings them out. The meaning is determined by context.

The
meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the
word and least dependent on context are usually described as free or
denominative meanings. Thus we assume that the meaning ‘a piece of
furniture’ is the denominative meaning of the word table, the meaning
‘construct, produce’ is the free or denominative meaning of the verb
make. Meanings of polysemantic words observed only in certain
contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (or verbal)
contexts or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.

The
two more or less universally recognized main types of linguistic
contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are
the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are
differenti­ated depending on, whether the lexical or the
grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning. In
lexical
contexts
of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with
the polysemantic word under consideration. The adjective heavy, e.g.,
in isolation is understood as meaning ‘of great weight, weighty’
(heavy load, heavy table, etc.). When combined with the lexical group
of words denoting natural phenomena such as wind, storm, snow, etc.,
it means ‘striking, falling with force, abundant’ as can be seen from
the contexts, e.g. heavy rain, wind, snow, storm, etc. In combination
with the words industry, arms, artillery -and the like, heavy has the
meaning ‘the larger kind of something’ as in heavy industry, heavy
artillery, etc.
It
can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing out this or
that individual meaning of the words is the lexical meaning of the
words with which they are combined. This can be also proved by the
fact that when we want to describe the individual meaning of a
polysemantic word, we find it sufficient to use this word in
combination with some members of a
certain
lexical group. To describe the meanings of the word handsome, for
example, it is sufficient to combine it with the follow­ing
words—a) man, person, b) size, reward, sum. The meanings determined
by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically (or
phraseologically) bound meanings which imply that such meanings are
to be found only in certain lexical contexts.
Some
linguists go so far as to assert that word-meaning in general can be
analysed through its collocability with other words. They hold the
view that if we know all the possible collocations (or word-groups)
into which a polysemantic word can enter, we know all its meanings.
Thus, the meanings of the adjective heavy, for instance, may be
analysed through its collocability with the words weight,
safe, table; snow, wind, rain; industry, artillery, etc.

The
meaning at the level of lexical contexts is sometimes described as
meaning by collocation.

In
grammatical
contexts
it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context
that serves to determine various individual meanings of a
polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb make,
e.g.
‘to force, to enduce’, is found only in the grammatical context
possessing the structure to
make somebody do something or
in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb make
is
followed by a noun and the in­finitive of some other verb (to
make smb. laugh,
go, work, etc.).
Another meaning of this verb ‘to become’, ‘to turn out to be’ is
observed in the contexts of a different structure, i.e. make
followed
by an adjective and a noun (to
make a good wife, a good teacher, etc.).
Such
meanings are sometimes described as grammatically (or structurally)
bound meanings. Cases of the type she
will make a good teacher may
be referred to as syntactically bound meanings, because the syntactic
function of the verb make
in
this particular context (a link verb, part of the predicate) is
indicative of its meaning ‘to become, to turn out to be’. A different
syntactic function of the verb, e.g. which of the predicate (to
make machines, tables, etc.)
excludes the possibility of the meaning ‘to become, turn out to be’.

In
a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the
grammatical aspects should be taken into consideration. The
grammat­ical structure of the context although indicative of the
difference between the meaning of the word in this structure and the
meaning of the same word in a different grammatical structure may be
insufficient to indicate in which of its individual meanings the word
in question is used. If we compare the contexts of different
grammatical structures, e.g. to take+noun and to
take to+noun,
we can safely assume that they represent different meanings of the
verb to take,
but
it is only when we specify the lexical context, i.e. the lexical
group with which the verb is combined in the structure to
take+noun
(to
take coffee, tea; books, pencils; the bus, the tram) that
we can say that the context determines the meaning.

It
is usual in modern linguistic science to use the terms pattern or
structure to denote grammatical contexts. Patterns may be represented
in conventional symbols, e.g. to
take smth. as
take+N. to
take to smb. as
take to+N.
So the same pattern to
take+N may
represent different mean­ings of the verb to
take dependent
mainly on the lexical group of the nouns with which it is combined.

Dealing
with verbal contexts we consider linguistic factors: lexical groups
of words, syntactic structure of the context and so on. There are
cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined
not by these linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation
in which this word is used. The meanings of the noun ring,
e.g.
in to
give somebody a ring, or
of the verb get
in I’ve
got it are
determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context, but much
more so by the actual speech situation.
The
noun ring
in
such
context may possess the meaning ‘a circlet of precious metal’ or ‘a
call on the telephone’; the meaning of the verb to
get in
this linguistic context may be interpreted as ‘possess’ or
‘understand’ depending on the actual situation in which these words
are used. It should be pointed out however that such cases, though
possible, are not actually very numerous. The linguistic context is
by far a more potent factor in determining word-meaning.

By
the term «context»
we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each
individual meaning of the word. The context individualises the
meanings, brings them out. The two main types of linguistic contexts
which serve to determine individual meanings of words are the
lexical context and the grammatical context.
These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or
the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.

In
lexical
context
of primary importance are lexical groups combined with the
polysemantic words under consideration.

The
adjective heavy
in
isolation possesses the meaning «of great weight, weighty».
When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural
phenomena as wind,
storm, etc.
it means «striking, following with force, abundant», e.g.
heavy
rain, wind, storm, etc.
In combination with the words industry,
arms, artillery and
the like, heavy
has
the meaning «the larger kind of something as heavy
industry, artillery»

In
grammatical
context
it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context
that serves to determine various individual meanings of a
polysemantic word. Consider the following examples: 1)
I made Peter study He made her laugh

They
made him work (sing, dance, write...)
2)
My
friend made a good teacher He made a good husband

In
the pattern «to make +
N(Pr)+
V inf’
the
word make
has
the meaning «to force», and in the pattern «to make +
A
+
N»
it has the meaning «to turn out to be». Here the
grammatical context helps to determine the meaning of the word «to
make».

So,
linguistic (verbal) contexts comprise lexical and grammatical
contexts. They are opposed to extra linguistic contexts (non-verbal).
In extra- linguistic contexts the meaning of the word is determined
not only by linguistic factors but also by the actual situation in
which the word is used.

Билет
№ 19 (Понятие
валентности слова. Типы валентности)

The
2 main linguistic factors active in the uniting words into
word-groups are the lexical
and
the grammatical
valency
of words. It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain
lexical contexts, in combination with other words. The aptness of a
word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical
valency or collocability. The range of the lexical
valency of
words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the
English word-stock. This can be easily ob­served in the selection
of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbs lift
and raise,
e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is
collocated with the noun question.
There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any
departure from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic
device. Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a
cliché. We observe, for example, that the verb put
forward
and the noun ques­tion
are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verb put
forward
or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate
the word question.
So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual
word-group, a kind of cliché.

One
more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the
problem of lexical valency—the interrelation of lexical valency and
polysemy as found in word-groups. Firstly, the restrictions of
lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical
meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups. The adjective
heavy,
e.g., is combined with the words food,
meals, supper,
etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest. But not all the
words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined
with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or
heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is diffi­cult
to digest.
Secondly
it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described
through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through the
lexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of
the adjective heavy
may be described through the word-groups heavy weight (book, table,
etc.), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.), heavy drinker (eater, etc.),
heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.), heavy industry (tanks,
etc.),
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.

Words
are used also in grammatical
contexts.
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-group. For instance, the adjective heavy
can be followed by a noun (e.g. heavy storm or by the infinitive of a
verb (e.g. heavy to lift), etc. The aptness of a word to appear in
specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is termed
grammatical valency. The grammatical valency of words may be
different.
To begin with, the range of grammatical valency is delimited by the
part of speech the
word
belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each
individual word is independent on the grammatical structure of the
language.
This
is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the
same part of speech is necessarily identical. This can be best
illustrated by comparing the grammatical valency of any two words
belonging to the same part of speech, e.g. of the two synonymous
verbs suggest
and
propose.
Both verbs can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan, a
resolution). It is only propose, however, that can be followed by the
infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.)

Билет
№ 20.
(Синонимия.
Классификация
синонимов)

Synonyms
are usually defined as words belonging to one and the same part of
speech, close in meaning, that makes it possible to be
interchangeable at least in some contexts.

To
select-to choose, clothing-clothes-garments-vestments.

All
synonyms are characterized by sem. relations of equivalents or by
sem. relations of proximity.

Synonyms
may be found in different parts of speech and both among notional and
function words. For example: though
and
albeit,
on
and upon,
since
and as
are synonymous because these phonemically different words are
similar in their denotational meaning.

Synonyms
are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but
identical or similar in meaning. It’s inconceivable that
polysemantic words could be synonymous in all their meanings. So, the
number of synonymic sets of a polysemantic word tends, as a rule, to
be equal to the number of individual meanings the word possesses. (to
look-to see, watch, observe).

Differentiation
of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components-
denotational and connotational.

It
should be noted that the difference in denotational meaning cannot
exceed certain limits, and is always combined with some common
denotational component. The verbs look,
seem, appear…
are viewed as members of one synonimic set as all three of them
possess a common denotational semantic component ‘to
be in one’s view, or judgement, but not necessarily in fact’
and come into comparison in this meaning.

It
follows that relationship of synonymity implies certain differences
in the denotational meaning of synonyms. In this connection a few
words should be said about the traditional classification of synonyms
into ideographic
and stylistic
synonyms.

This
classification proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may differ
either in the denotational
meaning(ideographic
synonyms) or the connotational
meaning,
or to be more exact stylistic reference. In the synonymous verbs
seem,
appear, look
the stylistic reference may be regarded as identical
though
we observe some difference in their denotational component.
Difference in the denotational semantic component is also found in
synonymous words possessing different connotational components. (to
see- to
behold
are
usually treated as stylistic synonyms; see is stylistically neutral
and behold is described as bookish or poetic.) though the 2 verbs
have a common denotational component “to take cognizance of
something by physical or mental vision”, there is a marked
difference in their comparable meanings. The verb behold
suggests
only “looking at that which is seen”, the verb see
denotes “have or use power of sight”, “understand”, “have
knowledge or experience of” and others.

Difference
of the connotational semantic component is invariable accompanied by
some difference of the denotational meaning of synonyms. Therefore,
we can draw some conclusions: synonyms are subdivided into full
synonyms
(spirant- fricative), ideographic(denotational)—
these synonyms are the most common, frequent synonyms in the language
system. (to
stay- to remain; to swim- to float), stylistic
synonyms
(to begin- to commence- to initiate).

Synonymy
is the coincidence in the essential meaning of words which usually
preserve their differences in connotations and stylistic
characteristics.

Synonyms
are two or more words belonging to the same part of speech and
possessing one or more identical or nearly identical denotational
meanings, interchangeable in some contexts. These words are
distinguished by different shades of meaning, connotations and
stylistic features.

The
synonymic dominant
is the most general term potentially containing the specific features
rendered by all the other members of the group. The words face,
visage,
countenance have
a common denotational meaning «the front of the head» which
makes them close synonyms. Face
is
the dominant, the most general word; countenance
is
the same part of the head with the reference to the expression it
bears; visage
is
a formal word, chiefly literary, for
face or
countenance.

In
the series leave,
depart, quit, retire, clear out the
verb leave,
being
general and most neutral term can stand for each of the other four
terms.

One
must bear in mind that the majority of frequent words are
polysemantic and it is precisely the frequent words that have many
synonyms. The result is that a polysemantic word may belong in its
various meanings to several different synonymic groups. Kharitonchic
Z. gives the example of 9
synonymic
groups the word part
enters
as the result of a very wide polysemy:

1)
piece,
parcel, section, segment, fragment, etc; 2)
member,
organ, constituent, element, component, etc; 3)
share,
portion, lot; 4)
concern,
interest, participation; 5)
allotment,
lot, dividend, apportionment; 6)
business,
charge, duty, office, function, work; 7)
side,
party, interest, concern, faction;
character,
role, cue, lines; 9)
portion,
passage, clause, paragraph. The semantic structures of two
polysemantic words sometimes coincide in more than one meaning, but
never completely. L. Bloomfield and E. Nida suppose even that there
are no actual synonyms, i.e. forms which have identical meanings.

In
a great number of cases the semantic difference between two or more
synonyms is supported by the difference in valency. An example of
this is offered by the verbs win
and
gain
Both
may be used in combination with the noun victory:
to
win a victory, to gain a victory. But with the word war
only
win
is
possible: to win a war.

Criteria
of synonymity is interchangeability. It should be pointed out that
neither the traditional definition of synonyms nor the new version
provide for any objective criterion of similarity of meaning. It is
solely based on the linguistic intuition of the analyst.

Recently
there has been introduced into the definition of synonymity the
criterion of interchangeability in linguistic contexts that is
synonyms are supposed to be words which can replace each other in a
given context without the slightest alteration either in the
denotational or connotational meaning.

But
this is possible only in some contexts, in others their meanings may
not coincide, e.g. the comparison of the sentences «the rainfall
in April was abnormal» and «the rainfall in April was
exceptional» may give us grounds for assuming that exceptional
and
abnormal
are
synonyms. The same adjectives in a different context are by no means
synonymous, as we may see by comparing «my son is exceptional»
and «my son is abnormal» (B. Quirk, the Use of English,
London 1962,
p.
129)

Peace
and
tranquillity
are
ordinarily listed as synonyms, but they are far from being identical
in meaning. One may speak of a
peace conference, but
not tranquillity
conference. (E.Nida,
The Descriptive analysis of words).

Classification
of Synonyms

According
to whether the difference is in denotational or connotational
component synonyms are classified into ideographic and stylistic.
Ideographic synonyms denote different shades of meaning or different
degrees of a given quality. They are nearly identical in one or more
denotational meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts,
e.g. beautiful
— fine —
handsome
—pretty
Beautiful conveys,
for instance, the strongest meaning; it marks the possession of that
quality in its fullest extent, while the other terms denote the
possession of it in part only. Fineness, handsomeness and prettiness
are to beauty as parts to a whole.

In
the synonymic group choose,
select, opt, elect, pick the
word choose
has
the most general meaning, the others are characterised by differences
clearly statable: select
implies
a wide choice of possibilities (select
a
Christmas present for a child), opt
implies
an alternative (either this, or that as in Fewer students are opting
for
science courses nowadays); pick
often
implies collecting and keeping for future use (pick
new
words), elect
implies
choosing by vote (elect
a
president; elect
smb
(to be) chairman).

Stylistic
synonyms differ
not so much in denotational as in emotive value or stylistic sphere
of application.

Pictorial
language often uses poetic words, archaisms as stylistic alternatives
of neutral words, e.g. maid
for
girl,
bliss for
happiness,
steed for
horse,
quit for
leave.

Calling
and
vocation
in
the synonymic group occupation,
calling, vocation, business are
high-flown as compared to occupation
and
business.

In
many cases a stylistic synonym has an element of elevation in its
meaning, e.g.
face — visage, girl —
maiden.

Along
with elevation of meaning there is the reverse process of
degradation: to begin
—
to
fire away, to eat —
to
devour, to steal —
to
pinch, face —
muzzle.
According
to the criterion of interchangeability in context synonyms are
classified into total, relative and contextual.

Total
synonyms
are those members of a synonymic group which can replace each other
in any given context, without the slightest alteration in denotative
meaning or emotional meaning and connotations. They are very rare.
Examples can be found mostly in special literature among technical
terms and others, e.g. fatherland
—
motherland,
suslik —
gopher,
noun —
substantive,
functional affix —flection,
inflection, scarlet fever —
scarlatina
Relative
Synonyms

Some
authors class groups like ask
—
beg
—
implore,
or
like
—
love
—
adore,
gift —talent
—
genius,
famous —
celebrated-
eminent as
relative synonyms, as they denote different degree of the same notion
or different shades of meanings and can be substituted only in some
contexts.

Contextual
or context —
dependent
synonyms are similar in meaning only under some specific
distributional conditions. It may happen that the difference between
the meanings of two words is contextually neutralised ,
E.g.
buy
and
get
would
not generally be taken as synonymous, but they are synonyms in the
following examples: I’ll go to the shop and buy
some
bread.

I’ll
go to
the
shop and get
some
bread.

The
verbs bear,
suffer, stand are semantically
different and not interchangeable except when used in the negative
form: I can’t stand
it,
I can’t bear
it.

One
of the sources
of synonymy
is borrowing. Synonymy has its characteristic patterns in each
language. Its peculiar feature in English is the contrast between
simple native
words
stylistically neutral, literary
words
borrowed from French and learned
words
of Greco-Latin origin.

Native
English (to
ask to end to rise teaching belly)

French
Borrowings
(to question to finish to mount guidance stomach)

Latin
borrowings
(to interrogate to complete to ascend instruction abdomen)

There
are also words that came from dialects, in the last hundred years,
from American English, in particular, e.g. long
distance call AE
—
trunk
call BE,
radio
AE
—
wireless
BE.

Synonyms
are also created by means of all word —
forming
processes productive In the language.

Synonymic
differentiation

It
must be noted that synonyms may influence each other semantically in
two diametrically opposite ways: one of them is dissimilation
or
differentiation,
the other —
the
reverse process ,
i.e.
assimilation.

Many
words now marked in the dictionaries as «archaic» or
«obsolete» have dropped out of the language in the
competition of synonyms, others survived with a meaning more or less
different from the original one. This process is called synonymic
differentiation and is so current that is regarded as an inherent law
of language development.

The
development of the synonymic group land
has
been studied by A.A. Ufimtseva. When in the 13
century
soil
was
borrowed from French into English its meaning was «a strip of
land».

OE
synonyms eorpe,
land, folde ment
«the upper layer of earth in which plants grow».

Now,
if two words coincide in meaning and use, the tendency is for one of
them to drop out of the language.

Folde
became
identical to eorpe
and
in the fight for survival the letter won. The polysemantic word land
underwent
an intense semantic development in a different direction and so
dropped out of this synonymic series.

It
was natural for soil
to
fill this lexical gap and become the main name for the notion «the
mould in which plants grow». The noun earth
retained
this meaning throughout its history whereas the word ground,
in
which this meaning was formerly absent, developed it. As a result
this synonymic group comprises at present soil,
earth, ground.

The
assimilation
of synonyms consists in parallel development. This law was discovered
and described by G. Stern,, H.A. Treble and G.H. Vallins in their
book «An ABC of English Usage», Oxford, 1957,
p.
173
give
as examples the pejorative meanings acquired by the nouns wench,
knave and
churl
which
originally ment «girl», «boy», and «labourer»
respectively, and point out that this loss of old dignity became
linguistically possible because there were so many synonymous words
of similar meaning. As the result all the three words underwent
degradation in their meanings:

wench
—
indecent
girl knave
—
rascal
churl
—
country
man.

Билет
№ 21.
(Антонимия.
Классификация)

Antonyms
are words belonging to 1 part of speech sharing certain common sem.
properties and single out mostly on the basis of the sem. relations
of contrast. Like synonyms, perfect
or complete
antonyms
are rare. One cannot contrast antonyms if one does not see something
common between them. (black-
white).= colour common
m-g.

There
are 2 types of sem. opposition: polar
opposition and
relative
opposition.

Polar
opposition
rests
only on 1 sem. feature. (reach-
poor, dead- alive, kind-cruel).

Relative
opposition rests
on a number of sem. features. (to
leave=to go away- to arrive= to reach a place, esp, at the end of
long trip).

It’s
usual to find the relations of antonymy restricted to certain
contexts. (thick-thin).

It’s
more or less universally recognized that among the cases that are
traditionally described as antonyms there are at least the following
4 groups:

Contradictories
which
represent the type of semantic relations that exist between pairs
like dead-alive,
single-married, perfect-imperfect…

To
use one of the terms is to contradict the other and to use not before
one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other (not
dead- alive, not single- married)

It’s
also usual for one member of each pair to always function as the
unmarked or generic term for the common quality involved in both
members: age,
size…this
generalized denotational meaning comes to the fore in certain
contexts. (How
old is baby?-
we do not imply that the baby is old.)

Contraries
differ
from contradictories mainly because contradictories admit of no
possibility between them. One is either single or married, either
dead or alive… whereas contraries admit such possibilities. This
may be observed in cold-hot,
and cool-warm
which seem to be intermediate members. Thus, we may regard as
antonyms not only cold-hot
but also cold-warm.
Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or presence of
one of the components of meaning like sex and age. (man-
woman, man- boy).

Incompatibles.
Semantic relations of incompatibility exist among the antonyms with
the common component of meaning and may be described as the reverse
of hyponymy… the relations of exclusion but not of contradiction.
To say morning
is to say not
afternoon,
not
evening, not night.
The negation of one number of this set does not imply semantic
equivalence with the other but excludes the possibility of the other
words of this set. A relation of incompatibility may be observed
between colour terms since the choice of red…
entails the exclusion of black,
blue, yellow…Naturally
not all colour terms are incompatible. (scarlet-red=
hyponymy)

Interchangeability
in certain contexts analysed in connection with synonyms is typical
of antonyms as well. In a context where one membe of the antonymous
pair can be used, it’s, as a rule, interchangeable with the other
member.(a
wet shirt- a dry shirt).This
is not to imply that the same antonyms are interchangeable in all
contexts. (dry
air- damp air, dry lips- moist lips).

Conversives
denote
1 or the same thing referent as viewed from different points of view.
(to
cause- to suffer, to give- to receive)…

Antonyms
is a general term that serves to describe words different in sound
–form and characterized by different types of sem. contrast of
denotational meaning and interchangeability at least in some
contexts.

Билет
№ 22.
(Омонимия.
Классификация)

Words
identical in sound form but different in meaning are traditionally
termed homonyms.

We
do distinguish full homonyms( seal=
a sea animal, seal—
a design printed on paper by means of a stamp).

It’s
easily observed that only some of the word-forms(seal-seals)
are homonymous, whereas others (sealed,
sealing)
are not. In such cases we cannot speak of homonymous words but only
of homonymy of individual word-forms or of partial homonymy(find-
found-founded).

All
cases of homonymy may be classified into full
and partial
homonymy- homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms.

Homonyms
may be also classified by the type of meaning into lexical,
lexico-grammatical
and grammatical
(brothers-
brother’s)
homonyms. (seal-seal=
lexical homonyms because they differ in
lexical
meaning.)

If
we compare seal-
a
sea animal,
and to
seal—
to
close tightly,
we shall observe not only a difference in the lexical meaning of
their homonymous word-forms but a difference in their grammatical
meanings as well. Identical sound-forms (seals=Common
case plural of the noun) and he seals (third person sg of the verb)
possess each of them different grammatical meanings. As both
grammatical and lexical meanings differ we describe these homonymous
word-forms as lexico-grammatical.
Lexico-grammatical can
be subdivided into 2 groups: 1. identical in sound-form but different
in their grammatical and lexical meanings (seal-noun-
seal-verb)
2.
identical
in sound-form but different in their grammatical meanings and partly
different in their lexical meaning, partly different in their
semantic structure (seal-seal,
paper- to paper).

Homonyms
can be classified into homographs,
homophones,
perfect
homonyms.

Homographs
are words identical in spelling, but different both in their
sound-form and meaning (bow=/bou/
and bow /bau/: tear /tie/ and tear /teз/
).

Homophones
are
words identical in sound-form but different both in spelling and
meaning (sea-
to
see,
son
and sun).

Perfect
homonyms are
words identical both in spelling and in sound-form but different in
meaning (case—
something that has happened, case—
a box, a container).

The
2 main sources of homonymy are: 1. diverging
meaning of a polysemantic word
(flower-flour=
originally were one word) the difference in spelling underlines the
fact that from the synchronic point of view they are 2 distinct words
even though historically they have a common origin. 2.
convergent sound development of 2 or more different words.
(love-
to love=lufu-lufian).

Synchronically
the
differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is, as a rule, wholly
based on
the semantic criterion.
It is usually held that if a connection between the various meanings
is apprehended by the speaker, these are to be considered as making
up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a
case of homonymy, not polysemy.

The
criteria used in the synchronis analysis of homonymy are: 1.
the sem. criterion of related and unrelated meanings; 2. the
criterion of spelling(knight-
night)
3. the criterion of distribution (paper-
to paper).

Homonyms
are words which have the same form but are different in meaning. «The
same form» implies identity in sound form or spelling, i.e. all
the three aspects are taken into account: sound-form, graphic form
and meaning. Both meanings of the form «liver» are, for
instance, intentionally present in the following play upon words; «Is
life worth living ?
— It
depends upon the liver»,

The
most widely accepted classification of homonyms is that recognising
homonyms proper, homophones and homographs.

Homonyms
proper (or perfect, absolute) are words identical in pronunciation

аnd
spelling but different in meaning, like back
n.
«part of the body» —
back
adv.
«away from the front» —
back
v.
«go back»; bear
n.
«animal» —
bear
v, «carry,
tolerate».

Homophones
are words of the same sound but of different spelling and meaning:
air
—
heir,
buy —
by,
him —
hymn,
steel —
steal,
storey —
story.

Homographs
are words different in sound and in meaning but accidentally
identical in spelling: bow
[bou]
—
bow
[bau],
lead
[li:d]
—
lead
[led].

Homoforms
—
words
identical in some of their grammatical forms. To
bound (jump,
spring) —
bound
(past participle
of the verb bind);
found (
establish)
-found
(past
participle of the verb
find).

Paronyms
are words that are alike in form, but different in meaning and usage.
They are liable to be mixed and sometimes mistakenly interchanged.

The
term paronym comes from the Greek para
«beside» and onoma
«name».
Examples are: precede
—
proceed,
preposition —
proposition,
popular —
populous.

Homonyms
in English are very numerous. Oxford English Dictionary registers
2540
homonyms,
of which 89%
are
monosyllabic words and 9,1%
are
two-syllable words.

So,
most homonyms are monosyllabic words. The trend towards
monosyllabism, greatly increased by the loss of inflections and
shortening, must have contributed much toward increasing the number
of homonyms in English .

Among
the other ways of creating homonyms the following processes must be
mentioned:

conversion
which serves the creating of grammatical homonyms, e.g. iron
—to
iron, work —
to
work, etc.;

polysemy
—
as
soon as a derived meaning is no longer felt to be connected with the
primary meaning at all (as in bar
—
балка;
bar
—
бар;
bar
—
адвокатура)
polysemy
breaks up and separate words come into existence, quite different in
meaning from the basic word but identical in spelling.

From
the viewpoint of their origin homonyms are sometimes divided into
historical and etymological.

Historical
homonyms are those which result from the breaking up of polysemy;
then one polysemantic word will split up into two or more separate
words, e.g. to bear /терпіти/
—
to
bear /народити/
pupil
/учень/
—
pupil
/зіниця/
plant
/
рослина/
—
plant
/завод/

Etymo1ogiсal
homonyms
are words of different origin which come to be alike in sound or in
spelling (and may be both written and pronounced alike).

Borrowed
and native words can coincide in form, thus producing homonyms (as in
the above given examples).

In
other cases homonyms are a result of borrowing when several different
words become identical in sound or spelling. E.g. the Latin vitim
—
«wrong», «an

immoral
habit» has given the English vice
—
вада
«evil
conduct»; the Latin vitis
-«spiral»
has given the English »vice» —
тиски «apparatus
with strong jaws in which things can be hold tightly»; the Latin
vice
—
«instead
of», «in place of» will be found in vice
—
president.

It
should be noted that the most debatable problem in homonymy is the
demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between
different meanings of one word and the meanings of two or more
homonymous words.

Билет
№ 23.
(Семантическая
классификация
слов).

Words
can be classified in various ways. Here, we are concerned only with
the semantic classification of words.

Words
may be classified according to the concepts underlying their m-ng.
This classification is closely connected with the theory of
conceptual or semantic fields. By this term we understand closely
knit sectors of voc. each characterized by a common concept.

For
e.g., the words blue, red, yellow, black, etc. may be described as
making up semantic field of colours, the words mother, father,
brother, cousin, etc. – as members of the semantic field of kinship
terms, the words joy, happiness, gaiety, enjoyment, etc. as belonging
to the field of pleasurable emotions, and so on.

The
members of the semantic field are not synonyms but all of them are
joined together by some common semantic component – the concept of
colours or the concept of kinship, etc.. This semantic component
common to all the members of field is sometimes described as the
common denominator of m-ng. All members of the field are
semantically interdependent as each member helps to delimit and
determine the m-ng of its neighbours. It follows that the word-m-ng
is to a great extent determined by the place it occupies in its
semantic field.

It
is argued that we cannot possibly know the exact m-ng of the word if
do not know the structure of the semantic field to which the word
belongs, the number of the members, etc.. e.g. The m-ng of word
captain cannot be properly understood until we know the semantic
field in which this term operates – the army, the navy, the
merchant service. It means that the m-ng of the word captain is
determined by the place it occupies among the terms of the relevant
system.

Semantic
dependence of the word on the structure of the field may be also
illustrated by comparing members of analogous conceptual fields in
different languages. Comparing, for e.g., kinship terms in Russian
and in English we observe that the m-ng of the Eng. term
mother-in-law is different from either the Russ. теща
or свекровь
as Eng. term covers the whole area which in Russ. is divided between
the 2 words. The same is true of the sem. Field of colours ( blue –
синий,
голубой).

Lexical
groups described above may be very extensive and may cover big
conceptual areas, e.g. space, matter, intellect, etc..

Words
making up such semantic fields may belong to different parts of
speech. For e.g., in sem. field of space we find nouns: expanse,
extent, surface, etc.; verbs: extend, spread, spa , etc.; adj. :
broad, roomy, vast, etc..

There
may be comparatively small lex. groups of words belonging to the same
part of speech and linked by a common concept. (milk, cheese, meat,
bread – make up a group with the concept of food). Such smaller
lex. groups consisting of words of the same part of speech are
usually termed lexico-semantic groups. It is observed that the
criterion for joining words together into semantic fields and
lexico-semantic groups is the identity of one of the components of
their m-ng found in all the lex. units making up these lex. groups.

For
e.g., the word saleswoman may be analysed into the sem. components
‘human’, ‘female’, ‘professional’.

Lexico-sem.
groups seem to play a very important role in determining individual
m-ngs of polysemantic words in lexical contexts. Analysing lex.
contexts we saw that the verb take, e.g., in combination with any
member of the lexical group denoting means of transportation is
synonymous with the verb go (take the tram,. the bus, etc) When
combined with members of another lex. group the same verb is
synonymous with to drink (to take tea, coffee, etc). Such word-groups
are often used not only in scientific lexicological analysis, but
also in practical class-room teaching.

Another
type of classification almost universally used in practical classroom
teaching is known as thematic grouping. Classification of voc. items
into thematic groups is based on the co-occurrence of words in
certain repeatedly used contexts.

In
linguistic contexts co-occurrence may be observed on different
levels. On the level of word-groups the word question, for e.g., is
often found in collocation with the verbs raise, discuss, put
forward, etc., with the adj. urgent, vital, disputable and so on. The
verb accept occurs in numerous contexts together with the nouns
proposal, invitation, plan and others.

As
a rule, thematic groups deals with contexts on the level of the
sentence. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common
contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and
reflect the words, e.g. tree- grow- green; journey- train- taxi-
bags- ticket, is due to the regular co-occurrence of these words in
number of sentences. Words making up a thematic group belong to
different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator
of m-ng.

Contextual
associations are usually conditioned by the context of situation
which necessitates the use of certain words. When watching a play,
for e.g., we naturally speak of the actors who act the main parts,
of good [bad] staging of the play, of the wonderful scenery and so
on.

Билет
№ 24. (Словосочетания.
Основные характеристики и структурные
классы.)

A
word-group is the largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more then
one word but expressing one global concept.

Structurally
word-groups may be approached in various ways:

• through
  the order and arrangement of the component members:

• endocentric
  (having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole
  w.gr.: a green tree, red flower)

• exocentric
  (the
  distribution of the w.gr. is different from either of its members:
  side by side, grow smaller, turn grey)

In
endocentric w.gr. the central component that has the same
distribution as the whole gr. is clearly the dominant member or the
head to which all other members of the gr. are subordinated (kind
to people).

according
to the head-word (in endocentric w.gr.) – if it’s of this certain
part of speech:

• nominal
  gr.
  (red flower)

• adjectival
  (kind to people)

• verbal
  (to speak well), etc.

• according
  to their syntactic pattern:

• predicative
  ( have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence): she
  will come, John works

• non-predicative

Non-predicative
w.gr. depending on the type of connection, may be:

• subordinative
  (a man of wisdom, a green tree)

• coordinative
  (do
  or die, hand by hand, now and then)

The
lexical meaning
of the w.gr. is the combined lexical meaning of the component words.
The meaning of the w.gr. is motivated by the meanings of the
component members and is supported by the structural pattern. But
it’s not a mere sum total of all these meanings! Polysemantic words
are used in w.gr. only in 1 of their meanings. These meanings of the
component words in such w.gr. are mutually interdependent and
inseparable (blind man – “a human being unable to see”, blind
type – “ the copy isn’t readable).

W.gr.
possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed
mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. The
structural pattern of w.grs. is the carrier of a certain semantic
component not necessarily dependent on the actual lexical meaning of
its members (school grammar – “grammar which is taught in
school”, grammar school – “a type of school”). We have to
distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of w.gr.
as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.

It
is often argued that the meaning of w.grs. is also dependent on some
extra-linguistic factors – on the situation in which w.grs. are
habitually used by native speakers.

Билет
№ 25.
(Семантические
классы
словосочетаний.)

[[As
both structure and meaning are parts of the w.gr. as a linguistic
unit, the interdependence of these two-facets is naturally the
subject matter of lexicological analysis.

The
term syntactic
structure (formula)
properly speaking implies the description of the order and
arrangement of member-words as parts of speech. These formulas may
be used to describe all the possible structures of English w.grs.
(the syntactic structure of the nominal grs. Clever man and red
flower may be represented as A+N, of the verbal grs.: To build houses
– V+N, to rely on somebody – V+prp+N).

The
structure of w.grs. may be also described in relation to the
head-word. In this case we speak of patterns
of w.grs., not of formulas. So, the term pattern implies that we are
speaking of the structure of the w. gr. in which a given word is used
as its head (to build houses – to build + N). The difference in the
meaning of the head-word is conditioned by a difference in the
pattern of the w.gr. in which this word is used. Although difference
in the pattern signals as a rule difference in the meaning of the
head-word, identity of pattern cannot be regarded as a reliable
criterion for identity of meaning. Structurally simple patterns are
as a rule polysemantic, whereas structurally complex patterns are
monosemantic and condition just 1 meaning of the head-member (take +
N: take tea, coffee => polysemantic; take + to + N: take to sports
=> monosemantic).]]

P.S.
Информация, заключенная в [[ ]] может
понадобиться для вопроса 24.

Semantically
all w.grs. may be classified into motivated
and non-motivated.

W.grs.
may be described as lexically motivated if the combined lexical
meaning of the groups is deducible from the meaning of their
components( heavy weight, take lessons). The constituents of the
lexically non-motivated grs. do not possess the denotational meaning
found in the same words outside these groups ( red tape, take place).

W.grs.
are said to be structurally motivated if the meaning of the pattern
is deducible from the order and arrangement of the member-words of
the group ( red flower => quality + substance).

In
w.grs. the problem of motivation is closely connected with the
problem of stability. Motivated units are either free
w.grs.
or stable
w.grs. Non-motivated w.grs. are all set
(stable) w.grs.
(idioms).Examples:
light weight, supper – free, motivated; light industry –
semi-free, semi-motivated; light hand (сноровка)
– stable, non-motivated.

On
the basis of motivation all w. grs. fall into:

• virtual
  – all possible w.grs.

• non-characteristic
  (blue rage, black silence)

Virtual
w.grs. may be free,
stable.
Free w.grs. fall into: 1) marginal (to sleep on the roof); 2) actual
(all the groups); 3) quasi-free (standard of living, population
growth). Stable w.grs. can be: 1) phraseological (idioms), 2)
phraseomatic and 3) semi-stable (standard of living).

Seemingly
identical w.grs. are sometimes found to be motivated or non-motivated
depending on their semantic interpretation (apple sauce – 1. a
sauce made of apples, 2. nonsense).

Every
utterance is a patterned, rhythmed and segmented sequence of signals.
On the lexical level these signals building up the utterance are not
exclusively words. Alongside with separate words speakers use larger
blocks consisting of more than one word.

Words
combined to express ideas and thoughts make up word-groups.

The
degree of structural and semantic cohesion of words within
word-groups may vary. Some word-groups are functionally and
semantically inseparable, e.g. rough
diamond, cooked goose,
to
stew in one’s own juice. Such
word-groups are traditionally described as set-phrases or
phraseological units. Characteristic features of phraseological units
are non-motivation for idiomaticity and stability of context. The
cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made
units.

The
component members in other word-groups possess greater semantic and
structural independence, e.g. to
cause misunderstanding, to shine brightly, linguistic phenomenon, red
rose Word-groups
of this type are defined as free word-groups for free phrases. They
are freely made up in speech by the speakers according to the needs
of communication.

Set
expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semi-fixed
combinations. All these are but different stages of restrictions
imposed upon co-occurance of words, upon the lexical filling of
structural patterns which are specific for every language. The
restriction may be independent of the ties existing in
extra-linguistic reality between the object spoken of and be
conditioned by purely linguistic factors, or have extralinguistic
causes in the history of the people. In free word-combination the
linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties
of words.

Free
word-groups
of syntactically connected notional words within a sentence, which by
itself is not a sentence. This definition is recognised more or less
universally in this country and abroad. Though other linguistics
define the term word-group differently —
as
any group of words connected semantically and grammatically which
does not make up a sentence by itself. From this point of view
words-components of a word-group may belong to any part of speech,
therefor such groups as m
the morning, the window, and
Bill
are
also considered to be word-groups (though they comprise only one
notional word and one form-word).

Structurally
word-groups may be approached in various ways.

All
word-groups may be analysed by the criterion of distribution into two
big classes. Distribution is understood as the whole complex of
contexts in which the given lexical unit can be used. If the
word-group has the same linguistic distribution as one of its
members, It is described as
endocentric,
i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole
word-group. The word-groups, e.g. red
flower, bravery of alt kinds, are
distributionally identical with their central components flower
and
bravery:
I
saw a red flower —
I saw a flower. I appreciate bravery of all kinds —
I
appreciate
bravery.

If
the distribution of the word-group is different from either of its
members, it is regarded as exocentric,
i.e. as having no such central member, for instance side
by side or
grow
smaller and
others where the component words are not syntactically substitutable
for the whole word-group.

In
endocentric word-groups the central component that has the same
distribution as the whole group is clearly the dominant member or the
head to which ail other members of the group are subordinated. In the
word-group red
flower the
head is the noun flower
and
in the word-group kind
of people the
head is the adjective kind

Word-groups
are also classified according to their syntactic pattern into
predicative
and non-predicative groups.
Such word-groups, e.g. John
works, he went that
have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence, are
classified as predicative, and all others as non-predicative.
Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided according to the type
of syntactic relation between the components into subordinative
and coordinative.
Such word-groups as red
flower, a man of wisdom and the like are
termed subordinative in which flower
and
man
are
head-words and red,
of wisdom are
subordinated to them respectively and function as their attributes.
Such phrases as woman
and child, day and night, do or die are
classified as coordinative. Both members in these word-groups are
functionally and semantically equal.

Subordinative
word-groups may be classified according to their head-words into
nominal groups (red
flower), adjectival
groups (kind
to people), verbal
groups (to
speak well), pronominal
(all
of them), statival
(fast
asleep). The
head is not necessarily the component that occurs first in the
word-group. In such nominal word-groups as, e.g. very
great bravery, bravery in the struggle the
noun bravery
is
the head whether followed or preceded by other words.

The
meaning
of word-groups may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the
components.

The
lexical meaning of the word-group
may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component
words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group red
flower may
be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red
and
flower.
It
should be pointed out, however, that the term combined lexical
meaning is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere
additive result of all the lexical meaning of the component members.
As a rule, the meaning of the component words are mutually dependant
and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the
lexical meanings of its constituents.

Word-groups
possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed
by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. Such word-groups
as school
grammar and
grammar
school are
semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of
arrangement of the component words. It is assumed that the structural
pattern of word-group is the carrier of a certain semantic component
which does not necessarily depend on the actual lexical meaning of
its members. In the example discussed above school
grammar the
structural meaning of the word-group
may be abstracted from the group and described as «quality-substance»
meaning. This is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the
word-group but not by either the word school
or
the word grammar.
It
follows that we have to distinguish between the structural meaning of
a given type of 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. The inseparability
of these two semantic components in word-groups can be illustrated by
the semantic analysis of individual word-groups in which the norms of
conventional collocability of words seem to be deliberately
overstepped. For instance, in the word-group all
the sun long we
observe a departure from the norm of lexical valency represented by
such word-groups as all
the day long, all the night long, all the week long, and
a few others. The structural pattern of these word-groups in ordinary
usage and the word-group all
the sun long is
identical. The generalised meaning of the pattern may be described as
«a unit of time». Replacing day,
night, week by
another noun the sun
we
do not find any change in the structural meaning of the pattern. The
group all
the sun long functions
semantically as a unit of time. The noun sun,
however,
included in the group continues to carry its own lexical meaning (not
«a unit of time») which violates the norms of collocability
in this word-group. ft follows that 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.

Two
basic linguistic factors which unite words into word-groups and which
largely account for their combinability are lexical valency or
collocability and grammatical valency.

Words
are known to be used in lexical context, i.e. in combination with
other words. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations,
with other words is qualified as its lexical
collocability or valency.

The
range of a potential lexical collocability of words is restricted by
the inner structure of the language wordstock. This can be easily
observed in the examples as follows: though the words bend,
curl are
registered by the dictionaries as synonyms their collocability is
different, for they tend to combine with different words: e.g. to
bend a bar/ wire/pipe/ bow/ stick/ head/ knees to curl hair/
moustache/ a hat brim/waves/ lips

There
can be cases of synonymic groups where one synonym would have the
widest possible range of соllосаbility
(like shake
which
enters combinations with an immense number of words including earth,
air, mountains, сonvictions,
beliefs, spears, walls, souls, tablecloths, bosoms, carpets etc.)
while another
will have the
limitation
inherent in its semantic structure (like waag
which
means <
to
shake a thing by one end >,
and
confined to rigid group of nouns —
tail,
finger, head, tongue, beard, chin).

There
is certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any intentional
departure from this norm is qualified as a stylistic device, e.g.:
tons
of words, a life ago, years of dust.

Words
traditionally collocated in speech tend to make up so called cliches
or traditional word combinations. In traditional combinations words
retain their full semantic independence although they are limited in
their combinative power (e.g.: to
wage a war, to render a service, to make friends). Words
in traditional combinations are combined according to the patterns of
grammatical structure of the given language. Traditional combinations
fall into structural types as:

1. V+N
   combinations. E.G.: deal
   a blow, bear a grudge, take a fancy etc

2. V+
   preposition +N:
   fall
   into disgrace, go into details, go into particular, take into
   account, come into being etc.

3. V
   +
   Adj.:
   work
   hard, rain heavily etc.

4. V
   +
   Adj.:
   set
   free, make sure, put right etc.

5. Adj.
   +
   N.:
   maiden
   voyage, ready money, dead silence, feline eyes, aquiline nose,
   auspicious circumstances etc.

6. N
   + V:
   time
   passes / flies /
   elapses,
   options differ, tastes vary etc.

7. N
   + preposition
   +
   N:
   breach
   of promise, flow of words, flash of hope, flood of tears etc.

Grammatical
combinability also tells upon the freedom of bringing words together.
The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (syntactic)
structures is termed grammatical
valency.

The
grammatical valency
of words may be different. The range of it is delimited by the part
of speech the word belongs to. This statement, though, does not
entitle to say that grammatical valency of words belonging to the
same part of speech is identical.

E.g.:
the two synonyms clever
and
intelligent
are
said to posses different grammatical valency as the word clever
can
fit the syntactic pattern of Adj. +
preposition
at +
N clever
at physics, clever at social sciences, whereas
the
word intelligent
can
never be found in exactly the same syntactic pattern.

Unlike
frequent departures from the norms of lexical valency, departures
from the grammatical valency norms are not admissible unless a
speaker purposefully wants to make the word group unintelligible to
native speakers.

Thus,
the main approaches towards word —
groups
classification are as follows:

1. According
   to the criterion of distribution word-groups are classified into:

• endocentric.
  e.g. having one central member functionally equivalent to
  the whole word group. E.g.: red
  flower — the
  word group whose distribution does not differ from the distribution
  of its head word, the noun
  flower. As
  in I
  gave her a red flower. I gave her a flower

• exocentric,
  e.g. having the distribution different from that of either of its
  members. Here component words are not syntactically substituable
  for the whole word group. E.g.: Side
  by side, by leaps and bounds

2.
According
to the syntactic pattern word-groups are classified into:

• predicative
  They
  knew Children believe Weather permitting

• coordinative
  say
  or die, come and go

• subordinative
  a
  man of property, domesticated animals

3.
According to the part of speech the head word belongs to
subordinative free word groups may fail into:

• nominal
  stone
  wall wild life

• adjectival
  necessary
  to know kind to people

• verbal
  work
  hard go smoothly

• adverbial
  very
  fluently, rather sharply very well so quickly

• numerical
  five
  of them hundreds of refugees

• pronominal
  some
  of them all of us nothing to do

• statival
  fast
  asleep, full ajar

Word
groups may be described as lexically
motivated
if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the
meaning of its components. The degrees of motivation may be different
and range from complete motivation to lack of it. Free word — groups,
however, are characterised by complete motivation, as their
components carry their individual lexical meanings. Phraseological
units are described as non-motivated and are characterised by
different degree of idiomaticity.

Билет
№ 26. (Фразеологические
единицы. Основные характеристики и
классы.)

Р
ы
ж
к
о
в
а:
The classification which will be distributed here is found on the
fact that phraseology is regarded as a self-contained brunch of
linguistics and not as a part of lexicology.

Free
w. grs. are modeled units. Phraseological units are not modeled, not
built according to regular linguistic patterns, they are reproduced
ready-made
(to read between the lines, a hard nut to crack). Each phraseological
unit is a w.gr. with a unique combination of components, which make
up a single specific meaning. The integral meaning of the
phraseological units is not just a combination of literal meanings of
the components. The meaning is not distributed between the components
and is not reduced to the mere sum of their meaning. Stability
is the basic quality of all phraseological units (unique meaning +
ready-made usage).The usage of phraseologiical units is not subject
to free variations. Grammatical structure of phraseological units is
to a certain extent also stable (we can’t say “red tapes” only
“red tape”).

Phraseological
meaning may be motivated by the meaning of components but not
confined. Stability makes phraseological units more similar to words,
rather than free word combinations. But they can’t be quite
equivalent with words, they don’t possess the whole semantic
sphere (a white elephant – “a burden”). Correct understanding
of the units depends on the background information (etimology). One
lexical equivalent may correspond to several idioms: to exaggerate =>
1) to make a mountain out of a molehill (motivated), 2) to draw the
long bow.

According
to the type of meaning phraseological units may be classified into:

• Idioms

• Semi-idioms

• Phraseomatic
  units

Idioms
are
phraseological units with a transferred meaning. They can be
completely
or partially
transferred
(red tape).

Semi-idioms
are
phraseological
units with two phraseosemantic meanings: terminological
and transferred
(chain reaction, to lay down the arms).

Phraseomatic
units are
not transferred at all. Their meanings are literal.

Scientists
distinguish also:

• Phrases
  with a unique combination of components (born companion)

• Phrases
  with a descriptive meaning

• Phrases
  with phraseomatic and bound meaning (to pay attention to)

• Set
  expressions (clichés): the beginning of the end

• Preposition-noun
  phrases (for good, at least)

• Terminological
  expressions (general ticket, civil war)

Semantic
complexity is one of the most essential qualities of phraseological
units. It’s resulted from the complicated interaction of the
component meanings (meaning of prototype, of semantic structure…).
All these components are organized into a multilevel structure.

Idioms
contain all information in compressed form. This quality is typical
of idioms, it makes them very capacious units (idiom is a compressed
text). An idiom can provide such a bright explanation of an object,
that can be better than a sentence. We can compare idioms with fables
(the Prodigal son). Idioms based on cultural components are not
motivated (the good Samaritan, Lot’s wife, the Troy horse).

Phraseological
meaning
contains all background information. It covers only the the most
essential features of the object it nominates. It corresponds to the
basic concept, to semantic nucleus of the unit. It is the
invariant of information conveyed by semantically complicated word
combinations and which is not derived from the lexical meanings of
the conjoined lexical components.

According
to the class the word combination belongs to, we single out:

• idiomatic
  meaning

• idiophraseomatic
  meaing

• phraseomatic
  meaning

The
information conveyed by phraseological units is thoroughly organized
and is very complicated. It is characterized by 1) multilevel
structure, 2) structure of a field (nucleus + periphery), 3)
block-schema. It contains 3 macro-components which correspond to a
certain type of information they convey:

• the
  grammatical block

• the
  phraseological meaning proper

• motivational
  macro-component (phraseological imagery; the inner form of the
  phraseological unit; motivation)

Phraseological
unit is
a non-motivated word-group that cannot be freely made up in speech
but is reproduced as a ready made unit.

Reproducibility
is regular use of phraseological units in speech as single
unchangeable collocations.

Idiomaticity
is the quality of phraseological unit, when the meaning of the whole
is not deducible from the sum of the meanings of the parts.

Stability
of a phraseological unit implies that it exists as a ready- made
linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its
lexical components of grammatical structure.

1.
In
lexicology there is great ambiguity of the terms phraseology
and idioms
.
Opinions
differ as to how phraseology should be defined, classified, described
and analysed. The word «phraseology has very different meanings
in this country and in Great Britain or the United States, In
linguistic literature the term is used for the expressions where the
meaning of one element is dependent on the other, irrespective of the
structure and properties of the unit (V.V. Vinogradov); with other
authors it denotes only such set expressions which do not possess
expressiveness or emotional colouring (A.I. Smirnitsky), and also
vice versa: only those that are imaginative, expressive and emotional
(I.V.Arnold). N.N. Amosova calls such expressions fixed context
units, i.e. units in which it is impossible to substitute any of the
components without changing the meaning not only of the whole unit
but also of the elements that remain intact. O.S. Ahmanova insists on
the semantic integrity of such phrases prevailing over the structural
separateness of their elements. A.V. Koonin lays stress on the
structural separateness of the elements in a phraseological unit, on
the change of meaning in the whole as compared with its elements
taken separately and on a certain minimum stability.

In
English and American linguistics no special branch of study exists,
and the term «phraseology» has a stylistic meaning,
according to Webster’s dictionary ‘mode of expression, peculiarities
of diction, i.e. choice and arrangement of words and phrases
characteristic of some author or some literary work’.

Difference
in terminology («set-phrases», «idioms»,
«word-equivalents») reflects certain differences in the
main criteria used to distinguish types of phraseological units and
free word-groups. The term «set phrase» implies that the
basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical
components and grammatical structure of word-groups.

The
term «idiom» generally implies that the essential feature
of the linguistic units is idiomaticity or lack of motivation.

The
term «word-equivalent» stresses not only semantic but also
functional inseparability of certain word groups, their aptness to
function in speech as single words.

The
essential features of phraseological units are: a) lack of semantic
motivation; b) lexical and grammatical stability.

As
far as semantic motivation is concerned phraseological units are
extremely varied from motivated (by simple addition of denotational
meaning) like a sight
for sore eyes and
to
know the ropes, to
partially motivated (when one of the words is used in a not direct
meaning) or to demotivated (completely non-motivated) like tit
for tat, red-tape.

Lexical
and grammatical stability of phraseological units is displayed in the
fact that no substitution of any elements whatever is possible in the
following stereotyped (unchangeable) set expressions, which differ in
many other respects; all
the world and his wife, red tape, calf
love,
heads or tails, first night, to gild the pill, to hope for the best,
busy as a bee, fair and square, stuff and nonsense
time and
again, to and fro.

In
a free phrase the semantic correlative ties are fundamentally
different. The information is additive and each element has a much
greater semantic independence Each component may be substituted
without affecting the meaning of the other: cut
bread, cut cheese, eat bread. Information
is additive in the sense that the amount of information we had on
receiving the first signal, i.e. having heard or read the word cut,
is
increased, the listener obtains further details and learns what is
cut. The reference of cut
is
unchanged Every notional word can form additional syntactic ties with
other words outside the expression. In a set expression information
furnished by each element is not additive: actually it does not exist
before we get the whole. No substitution for either cut
or figure can
be made without completely ruining the following:

I
had
an uneasy fear that he might cut a poor figure beside all these
clever Russian officers (Shaw).
He
was not managing to cut
much
of a figure (Murdoch)

The
only substitution admissible for the expression cut
a poor figure concerns
the adjective.

1. Semantic
   approach stresses the importance of idiomaticity, functional —
   syntactic
   inseparability, contextual
   —
   stability
   of context combined with idiomaticity.

2. In
   his classification of V.V. Vinogradov developed some points first
   advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally The classification is
   based upon the motivation of the unit, i.e. the relationship
   existing between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of its
   component parts. The degree of motivation is correlated with the
   rigidity, indivisibility and semantic unity of the expression, i.e
   with the possibility of changing the form or the order of
   components, and of substituting the whole by a single word.
   According to the type of motivation three types of phraseological
   units are suggested, phraseological combinations, phraseological
   unities, and phraseological fusions.

The
Phraseological Collocations (Combinations),
are
partially motivated, they contain one component used in its direct
meaning while the other is used figuratively: meet
the demand, meet the necessity, meet the requirements.

Phraseological
unities
are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated. The emotional
quality is based upon the image created by the whole as in to
stick (to stand) to one’s guns, i.e.
refuse to change one’s statements or opinions in the face of
opposition’, implying courage and integrity. The example reveals
another characteristic of the type, the possibility of synonymic
substitution, which can be only very limited, e. g. to
know the way the wind is blowing.

Phraseological
fusions,
completely non-motivated word-groups, (e.g. tit
for tat), represent
as their name suggests the highest stage of blending together. The
meaning of components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the
whole, by its expressiveness and emotional properties. Phraseological
fusions are specific for every language and do not lend themselves to
literal translation into other languages.

5.
Semantic
stylistic features contracting set expressions into units of fixed
context are simile, contrast, metaphor and synonymy. For example: as
like as two peas, as оld
as the hills and older than the hills (simile);
from
beginning to end, for love or money, more or less, sooner or later
(contrast);
a lame
duck, a pack of lies, arms race, to swallow the pill, in a nutshell
(metaphor);
by
leaps and bounds, proud and haughty (synonymy).
A few more combinations of different features in the same phrase are:
as
good as gold, as pleased as Punch, as fit as a fiddle (alliteration,
simile); now
or never, to kill or cure (alliteration
and contrast). More rarely there is an intentional pun: as
cross as two sticks means
‘very angry’. This play upon words makes the phrase jocular. The
comic effect is created by the absurdity of the combination making
use of two different meanings of the word cross
a
and n.

There
are, of course, other cases when set expressions lose their
metaphorical picturesqueness, having preserved some fossilised words
and phrases, the meaning of which is no longer correctly understood.
For instance, the expression buy
a pig in a poke may
be still used, although poke
‘bag’
(cf. pouch,
pocket) does
not occur in other contexts. Expressions taken from obsolete sports
and occupations may survive in their new figurative meaning. In these
cases the euphonic qualities of the expression are even more
important. A muscular and irreducible phrase is also memorable. The
muscular feeling is of special importance in slogans and battle
cries. Saint
George and the Dragon for Merrie England, the
medieval battle cry, was a rhythmic unit to which a man on a horse
could swing his sword. The modern Scholarships
not battleships! can
be conveniently scanned by a marching crowd.

Билет
№27. (Пути
пополнения
словарного
запаса)
Ways and means of enriching the vocabulary.

There
are 2 ways of enriching the Voc.:

I.vocabulary
extension – the appearance of new lexical items.

New
voc. Unit may appear mainly as a result of :

• productive
  or patterned ways of w-formation

• non-petterned
  ways of w-creation

• borrowing
  from other languages

II.semantic
extension – the appearance of new meanings of existing words which
may result in homonyms.

The
changes occurring in the voc. are due both to linguistic and
non-linguistic causese, but in the most cases to the combination of
both. Words may drop out altogether as a result of the disappearance
of the actual objects they denote :

(OE.
wunden-stefna
– “a curved-stemmed ship”);

Some
words ousted as a result of the influence of Scandinavian and French
borrowings. :

The
Scand. take
and
die ousted
the OE.
:niman
and
sweltan
.

Sometimes
the words do not actually drop out but become absolute, sinking to
the level of voc. units used in narrow, specialized fields of human
intercourse making a group of archaisms: billow
– wave; welkin
– horse.

The
appearance of a great number of new words and the development of new
meanings in the words may be largely accounted for by rapid flow of
events, the progress of science and technology and emergency of new
concepts in different fields of human activity.

I.
The growth of the voc. reflects not only the general progress made by
mankind but also the peculiarities of the way of life of the speech
community in which the new words appear, the way its science and
culture tend to develop ( Amer. Way of life fine expression in
taxi-dancer;to
job-hunt;
Amer. Political life – witch-hunt;ghostwriter”a
person engaged to write the speeches or articles of an eminent
personality”)

1.Productive
w-formation
is the most effective means of enriching the voc. Means used :
affixation( prefixation
– verbs and adj.;
suffixation
– nouns and adj.),conversion,
composition(most
productive in nouns and adj.)

“New”
words that appear as a result of productive w –form. are not
entirely new as they are all made up of elements already available in
the language. The newness of these words in the particular
combination of the items previously familiar to the lang. speaker.
Productive patterns in each part of speech serve as a formal
expression of the regular semantic relationship between diff. classes
or sem. groupings of words. Thus the types of new words that may
appear in this or that lex-grammatical class of words can be
predicted with a high degree of probability.The existence of one
class of words presupposes the possibility of appearance of the other
which stands in regular semantic relations with it.For instance the
existence and frequent use of the noun denoting an object presupposes
the possibility of the verb denoting an action connected with it :
stream,sardine,hi-fi – to
stream
“to divide students into separate classes according to level of
intelligence”; to
sardine
– “to pack closely”; to
hi-fi
– “to listen to hi-fi records”

Yet
the bulk of productive patterns giving rise to freely formed and
easily predictable lex.classes of new words have a set of rigid
structural and semantic constraints such as the lex – grammatical
class and structural type of base, the semantic nature of the base
etc.

Highly
productive types :

• deverbal
  suffixal adjectives denoting passive possibility of the action ( v +
  -able = A ):attachable,
  acceptable;

• prefixal
  negative adjectives formed after 2 patterns :

(un
+ part I/II = A ):unguarded,unheardof

(un
+ a = A ): unsound,uncool.

• prefixal
  verbs of repetitive m-ngs ( re- + v = V):rearrange,re-train;

• prefixal
  verbs of reversative m-ng (un- + v =V):uncapo,unbundle.

The
great number of new compound nouns are formed after n
+ n = N

The
bi-directional nature of productive derivational patterns of special
interest in connecting with back- derivation as a source of new
verbs. Many new backderived verbs are often stylistically marked as
colloquial; enthuse
from enthusiasm,playact
from play-acting,tongue-tie
from tongue-tied etc.

Occasional(potential
words)
built on the analogy with the most productive types of derived and
compound words,easily understood and never striking one as “unusual”
or “new” they are so numerous that it is impossible not to use
them every day. Occasional words are especially connected with the
force of analogous creations based on productive w-formation
patterns.( from the compound noun sit-in
formed by analody teach-in,study-in,talk-in).

The
second components of compound nouns become such centers of creation
by analogy as for instance the component – sick
in sea-sick
and homesick gave analogy to car-sick,air-sick,space-sick.

Productive
w-formation has a specific distribution in relation to diff. spheres
of communication, thematic and lexical stylistic groups of new words.
New terminological voc. Units appear mainly as a result of
composition making extensive use of borrowed root-morphemes, and
affixation with sets of affixes of peculiar stylistic reference often
of Latin-Greek origin(-ite,-inr,-tron,-in,-gen,-ogen,-ics,non-,pan—
:citrin,penicillin,radionics,Nixinomics)

Lexical
units of more standard-colloquial layer are more often crated by
affixes of neutral stylistic reference,by conversion and composition.