Word combination is conveyed

---

---

Вычисление основной дактилоскопической формулы Вычислением основной дактоформулы обычно занимается следователь. Для этого все десять пальцев разбиваются на пять пар…

Расчетные и графические задания Равновесный объем — это объем, определяемый равенством спроса и предложения…

Кардиналистский и ординалистский подходы Кардиналистский (количественный подход) к анализу полезности основан на представлении о возможности измерения различных благ в условных единицах полезности…

Обзор компонентов Multisim Компоненты – это основа любой схемы, это все элементы, из которых она состоит. Multisim оперирует с двумя категориями…

A
word-combination is a compound nominative unit of speech, which is
semantically both global and articulated. There are some differences
in the terminology in the Russian- and the English-speaking
linguistic tradition. In the Russian terminological system the term
словосочетание
is
used
to
denote the unit mentioned above, Englishmen use it to denote any
combination of words, but the usual term, which corresponds to our
approach to словосочетание,
is
collocation.

Word-combinations
— are the «building material» for syntax. Syntax as a
science of ordered speech deals with two basic problems:

the
first one -> what are those ultimate units that constitute
speech,

the
second one -> how these units are organized in actual speech.

To
understand the division of the sentence into the parts, it is
important to first see the syntagmatic relationships between the
elements. Word-combination is a unit of both, syntagmatics and
syntax.

Thus,
the interdependence between the syntactic and the syntagmatic
analysis is the main stumbling block for understanding. To fully
convey the purport of an utterance, it is necessary to penetrate into
the lexical-phraseological connections between the ultimate
meaningful units of the language.

The
difference between the syntagmatic and the syntactic analysis of
speech may be explained by means of the following example:

Simon
had become to look for himself at the family foto.

If
one analyses this sentence syntagmatically, it is clear that here to
become to look for oneself and
family
foto —
are word-combinations, functionally, they are equivalent to a word.
From the point of view of syntax, had
become is
a predicate, to
look for —
an adverb, foto
— an
object, family
— an
attribute.

The
unity of colligation and collocation which is so important for
syntactic study in general, has no less importance for the study of
word-combinations.

Syntactic
relationships may restrict the collocability of one word with
another. Thus, the word much
may
be used before prefer
in
a sentence like In
international political arena Mr. Bush much prefer the position of
power. But
it is a mistake if the word much
is
used at the end of the sentence. Colligation and collocation may put
intralinguistic restriction upon the freedom with which the speaker
chooses the combination of words. First of all, a speaker while
bringing words together should follow some grammatical rules. At the
same time the process of combining words is restricted by the
lexical-phraseological valences of the words.

The
difference between a word-combination and a combination of words is
the following: a combination of words presupposes the possibility of
combining words together in the process of speech production; f
word-combination should be regarded as a free equivalent of a
phraseological unit.

The
«building material» for the construction of sentences
consists of

1)
word,

2)
phraseological unit,

3)
word-combination.

Thus,
to
pay a call is
a phraseological unit, which is equivalent to the word to
visit. To go to see is
a word-combination, which is a free equivalent of the phraseological
unit and of the word to
visit.

There
are some types of word-combinations in the English language:

nominal
word-combinations:
adjective
+ noun: pretty
woman;

noun
+ preposition + noun: brick
at the top;

noun
+ preposition + adjective + noun: a
man with small nose;

noun
+ preposition + verbal -ing:
difficulty
in understanding;

noun
+ infinitive: a
book to read;

verbal
word-combinations:
verb
+ noun: to
give a speech;
verb
+ infinitive: to
forget to post;
verb
+ verbal -ing:
to
stop doing;

verb
+ preposition + verbal -ing:
to
insist on going;

adverb
+ verb: completely
forgot;

verb
+ adverb: to
forget completely;

adjectival
word-combinations:
adjective
+ infinitive: nice
to meet;
adjective
+ preposition + noun: full
of water;
adjective
+ preposition + verbal -ing:
fond
of reading.

All
the above-mentioned word-combinations function as global wholes, as
«the prefabricated units» in speech. The syntactic bond
that connects the elements of word-combinations is very tight,
usually it is the attributive bond or the closest types of the
completive bond. A very important parameter in the study of the
expression plane of word-combinations is prosody.

There
exist different methods of study of word-combinations, but bearing in
mind the idea of the unity of collocation and colligation, the
categorial method seems to be most fruitful. This method is based on
the opposition of the marked and unmarked element of the category.

There
exist five categories of word-combinations in English:

1) The
category of connotativeness.

The
opposition here is connotative word-combinations vs non-connotative
word-combinations. Connotative word-combinations fulfil the function
of impact, they possess expressive-emotional-evaluative connotations.
Non-connotative word-combinations are neutral, they fulfil the
function of message. Thus, in the sentence In
her tone, she made the understanding clear —
they
were of the same kind, he and she, a sort of diabolic free-masonry
subsisted between them the
word-combination diabolic
free-masonry is
connotative, while in the sentence He
speaks English fluently the
word-combination to
speak fluently is
non-connotative.

There
are two main parameters which help to understand the real meaning of
word-combinations — context and prosody. Thus, a word-combination
may be quite neutral, taken in isolation, for example, to
break the vessel. But
within a context it becomes connotative: He
knew how near to breaking was the vessel that held his life.
In connection with the category of connotativeness it is important to
note that connotations may be inherent.

In
oral speech, connotative word-combinations are usually determined by
prosody.

1. The
   category of reproducibility.
   (this category is also called the category of «clicheed
   expressions»)

The
opposition here is clicheed vs non-clicheed word-combinations or
usual vs occasional word-combinations. In ordinary speech people
hardly ever coin word-combinations of their own, usually they use the
already existing ones. For example, in the sentence: My
favourite book was written by the famous writer, the
word-combinations favourite
book and famous writer are
quite usual word-combinations for our speech.

As
for the non-clicheed word-combinations — they should be created
anew or for the nonce, usually they are not reproducible. For
example, in the sentence Nurse
placed her in my lap, a squiggling bundle of life the
word-combination a
squiggling bundle of life is
a creation of the writer of the book. This kind of word-combinations
is usually very connotative.

Word-combinations
that belong to this category are characterised by the non-idiomatic
globality. These word-combinations may be segmented into separate
words, but depending on the reproducibility they tend to fuse into a
global concept.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

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

Lexical transformation translation

INTRODUCTION

theme of this course paper is the vocabulary of any language is so large and heterogeneous that not any translator, not even the native speaker can know all the words and distinguishes all their meanings. A vague knowledge of the text, the deep meaning hidden under the surface structure obliges the translator to be in constant contact with dictionaries, because they do translators in estimate service in understanding the text more clearly.right choice of the word for a complete transformation of the meaning of the word in the text is one of the complicated objectives in the translation process. The difficulty of this task is conditioned by the complex nature of the word and its versatile and semantic value. The word as a lexical unit in English and Russian languages dont always coincide. Too often one word may correspond a composite word or a whole word combination of English. For example: карусель — merry-go-round or may happen vice-versa. Another example: to stare — пристально смотреть.the aim of this course paper is to investigate lexical translation transformations. Consequently, the tasks of this research are:

to study the translation process and approaches to translation;

to explore lexical problems of translation;

to investigate the reasons for lexical transformations;

to give definitions to lexical transformations and provide examples.

This course paper consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion, bibliography and appendix.significance and actuality of the theme, the aim and tasks, the theoretical and practical importance of the paper is outlined in introduction.results of the research are generalized in the concluding part of the qualification paper.first chapter considers theoretical issues of translation and describes lexical problems of translation.second chapter deals with detailed analysis of each type of lexical transformations.

CHAPTER 1. TRANSLATION AND TRANSFORMATIONS

.1 Principles of translation and approaches to translation

is a unidirectional process, starting from one language, the source language (SL), and carrying over to a second, receptor language, or target language (TL). A brief general definition of translation might be: the replacement of a text in one language (SL) by an equivalent text in another language.structure of the translation should follow that of the original text: there should be no change in the sequence of narration or in the arrangement of the segments of the text.aim is maximum parallelism of structure which would make it possible to relate each segment of the translation to the respective part of the original. The translator is allowed to resort to a description or interpretation only in case «direct translation» is impossible.parallelism makes it possible to compare respective units in the original text and in the translation so as to discover elements which have equivalents and those which have not, elements which have been added or omitted in translation, etc. In other words, similarity in structure is preserved in respect to the smallest of the text.major importance is the semantic identification of the translation with ST. It is presumed that the translation has the same meaning as the original text. No exchange of information is possible if there is discrepancy between the transmitted and the received message.presumption of semantic identity between the source text and translation is based on the various degrees of equivalence of their meanings. The translator usually tries to produce in TL the closest equivalent to ST.any observable phenomenon, translation can be the object of scientific study aimed at understanding its nature, its components and their interaction as well as various factors influencing it or linked with it in a meaningful way.science of translation or translatology is concerned both; with theoretical and applied aspects of translation studies. A theoretical description of the translation phenomenon is the task o G the theory of translation.research is to discover what translation is, to find out what objective factors underlie the translator’s intuition, to describe the ways and methods by which the identity of the communicative value of the source text and translation is achieved. The objective knowledge can then be used to help the translator to improve his performance as well as to train future translators.theory of translation is subdivided into general theory, dealing with the general characteristics of translations regardless of its type, and special branches concerned, with a theoretical description and analysis of the various types of translation, such as the translation of fiction, poetry, technical and scientific literature, official documents, etc.general theory of translation has a clearly defined subject-matter: the process of translation in its entirety, including its results, with due regard to all the factors, affecting it. Each special branch specifies the general theory of translation for it is the job of the general theory to reflect what is common to all types and varieties of translation, while the special branches are mainly concerned with the specific features of each genre.general theory of translation is an interdisciplinary area, predominantly linguistic but also closely allied to psychology, ethnography and area studies. It is based on the application of linguistic theory to a specific type of speech, i.e., translation.differs from contrastive linguistics in that the former seeks to compare different language systems with a view to determine their similarities and distinctive features, while the theory of translation has a subject-matter of its own (the process of translation) and uses the data of contrastive linguistics merely as a point of departure.may be viewed, as an interlingual communicative act in which at least three participants are involved: the sender of source information (the author of the SL message), the translator who acts in dual capacity — as the receptor of the SL message and as the sender of the equivalent TL message and the receptor of the TL message (translation). If the original is produced not with a foreign language receptor in the mind, there is one more participant the source language receptor for whom the message was originally produced. Translation consists in producing a text (message) in the TL equivalent to the original text (message) in the SL.as an interlingual communicative act includes two phases: communication between the sender and the translator and communication between the translator and the receptor of the newly produced TL text. In the first phase the translator acting as a source language analyzes original message extracting the information contained in it. In the second stage the translator acts as a target language sender producing an equivalent message in the TL and redirecting it to the TL receptor.producing the TL text the translator changes its plan of expression (linguistic form) while its plan of content (meaning) should remain unchanged. In fact, the production of an equivalent message implies that the message produced is equivalent to the original in the plan of content. The message produced by the translator should evoke practically the same response in the TL receptor as the original message in the SL receptor. That means, above all, that whatever the text says and whatever it implies should be understood in the same way by both the SL used for whom it was originally intended and by the TL user. It is therefore the translator’s duty to make available to the TL receptor the maximum amount of information, carried by linguistic signs, including both their denotational (referential) meanings (i.e., information about the extra linguistic reality which they denote) and their emotive-stylistic connotations.theory of translation provides the translator with the appropriate tools of analysis and synthesis, makes him aware of what he is to look for in the original text, what type of information he must convey in translation and how he should act to achieve his goal. In the final analysis, however, his trade remains an art. For science gives the translator the tools, but it takes brains, intuition and talent to handle the tools with great proficiency.is a complicated phenomenon involving linguistic, psychological, cultural, literary, ergonomical and other factors.aspects of translation can be studied with the methods of the respective sciences. Up to date most of theoretical research of translation has been done within the framework of linguistics.linguistic theory of translation is concerned with translation as a form of speech communication establishing contact between communicants who speak different languages.is normally regarded as a process of linguistic formulation in the course of which the translator reproduces for a TL readership a message contained in an SL text, thus making it accessible, ideally in all its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, to the TL receiver. Translation is thus characterized as «interlingual translation» or «translation proper».point show translation to be a special case in communication, a communicative process sui generis, as essential characteristic of which is that the translator, by executing a sequence of interrelated code switching operations, reproduces an SL message, in a TL. In doing this, she/he uses TL signs, sign combinations, ant! sign combination rules which she/he selects from the TL lexical, idiomatic, and syntactic «repertoires in accordance with the task of attaining a stylistically flawless TL text., communication is monolingual: a message is transferred from a sender to a recipient, both persons using the same code, at least at the core level of the language, and, consequently, moving along on approximately the same linguistic wave-length.contrast to be monolingual act of communication, based on ‘code-sharing’, interlingual communication present a much more complex structure. Here communication is not limited to a single encoding and decoding process, but calls for two alternating processes of encoding and decoding. The message formulated in the SL code by the SL sender arrives at the translator who analyzes the message on the basis of his or her SL communicative competence and then undertakes in a number of interrelated stages, a TL reconstruction of the SL text. To effect the TL reconstruction of the message, the translator must be aware of the fact that specific text types contain conventions that are represented by obligatory textual configurations or schemata. Text that is newly conceived in this way then goes to the second or ultimate receiver who decodes the TL text, expecting it to be in harmony with his/her particular communicative needs and the predetermined task specifications.investigation of concrete instances of translation is the task not so much of a general theory of translation as of empirical translation research. The aim of such research is to make use o a cognitively based conception of the translation process in elaborating a systematic description, classification, and explanation of the translation procedures that occur in passing from a specific SL to a specific TL.a linguistic theory adequately to provide a basis for theory of translation it must include communication as a major component.purpose of translation normally is to communicate the intended meaning of the original author in a different language and to a different audience.theories have, as a rule, centered their attention on the analysis of the linguistic form of a sentence or text without much attention being given to the author, the audience, or the circumstances of the communication.theory of translation, however, must include more than the text itself. The meaning of a sentence depends not only on its place in the text but also on factors outside the text. Such factors are also relevant to the interpretation of the sentence.example, meaning is culturally conditioned: «Each society will interpret a message in terms of its own culture. The receptor audience will decode the translation in terms of its own culture and experience, not in terms of the culture and experience of the author and audience of the original document».

Translation theory must go beyond the confines of narrower linguistic theories to put linguistics into the framework communication. It must address the matter of text interpretation based not just on the words of the text, but on the intent of the author, the relationship of the author to the intended audience, the culture and worldview of the author and original audience, and also of the receptor audience. For translators to make a correct interpretation the source text they must have knowledge about various aspects of the communication situation. A translator must be receptor oriented. The important issue is what the translation will communicate to the new readership in the receptor language.core of the translation theory is the general theory of translation, which is concerned with the fundamental aspects of translation inherent in the nature of bilingual communication and therefore common to all translation events, irrespective of what languages are involved or what kind of text and under what circumstances was translated.general theory of translation deals, so to speak, with translation universals and is the basis for all other theoretical study in this area, since it describes what translation is and what makes possible.general theory of translation describes the basic principles which hold good for each and every translation event.

. Meaningtranslation should reflect accurately the meaning of the original text. Nothing should be arbitrary added or removed, though occasionally part of the meaning can be «transported».

. Formordering of words and ideas in the translation should match the original as closely as possible. (This is particularly important in translating legal documents, guarantees, contracts, etc.) But differences in language structure often require changes in the form and order of words. When in doubt, underline in the original text the words on which the main stress falls.

. Registeroften differ greatly in their levels of formality in a given context, (say, the business letter). To resolve these differences, the translator must distinguish between formal or fixed expressions and personal expressions, in which the writer or speaker sets the tone.

. Source language influence.of the most frequent criticisms of translation is that «it doesn’t sound natural». This is because the translator’s thoughts and choice of words are too strongly moulded by the original text. A good way of shaking off the source language influence is to set the text aside and translate a few sentences aloud, from, memory. This will suggest natural patterns of thought in the first language, which may not come to mind when the eye is fixed on the source language text.

. Style and clarity.translator should not change the style the original. But if the text is sloppily written, or full of tedious repetitions, the translator may, for the readers sake, correct the defects.

. Idiom

Idiomatic expressions are notoriously untranslatable. These include similes, metaphors, proverbs and saying (as good as gold), jargon, slang and colloquialisms (the Big Apple, yuppie, etc.) and phrasal verbs. If the expressions cannot be directly translated, try any of following:

• retain the original word, in inverted commas: «yuppie»
• retain the original expression, with a literal explanation in brackets: Indian summer ( dry, hazy weather in late autumn)

— use a close equivalent:

talk of the devil q(literally, the wolf at the door)

-use a non-idiomatic or plain prose translation: a bit over the top

The golden rule is: if the idiom does not work in the first language, do not force it into the translation.

There are two approaches to translation:

1. You start translating sentence by sentence, for say the first paragraph or chapter, to geed the feel, and the feeling tone of the text, and then you deliberately sit back, review the position and read the rest of the source language text.
2. You read the whole text two or three times, and find the intention, register, tone, mark the difficult words and passages and start translating only when you have taken your bearings.

Description of the translating process is one of the major of the translation theory. Here we deal with the dynamic aspects of translation trying to understand how the translator performs the transfer operations from the source text to translation.study of the linguistic machinery of translation makes it possible to outline the main principles of the translator’s strategy.confronted with the text to be translated, the translator’s first concern is to understand it by assessing the meaning of language units in the text against the contextual situation and the pertaining extra linguistic facts. At the same time the translator must care to avoid «thinking into» the text, i.e. adding the information which is not, in fact, present in the source text.the contents of the original the translator makes the assessment of the relative communicative value of different meaningful elements. In most cases his professed aim is to achieve the closest approximation to the original, i.e. to reproduce its contents in all the details.long as the linguistic or pragmatic reasons make it impossible and the translation involves a certain loss of information the translator has not infrequently to choose between several evil As often as not, one meaningful element of the original can be retained in translation only at the expense of omitting some other part of the contents.translator has to decide what bits of information he is prepared to sacrifice and what elements of the original meaning are of greater communicative value and should be rendered at any cost.predominance of the whole makes an imprint upon some of the techniques used by translators both for understanding the original text and for establishing a kind of semantic bridge to the translation. It can be observed that the translator first tries to get the most general idea of what is said in the original, to find out, so to speak, «who does what and to whom», to understand the general semantic pattern of framework of the sentence and then fill in the particular details.translator may first resort to the word-for-word translation imitating the syntactic structure of the original and using the most common substitutes of all words. The same method can be used to facilitate understanding if the general meaning of the original text eludes the translator.the translating may begin with an imitation of the original structure in translation to see whether a word-for-word translation is possible or should be replaced by a different structure. In this way the translator decides upon the syntactic framework of his future translation.technique is not infrequently used as the choice of lexical units may depend, to a large extend, on the syntactic pattern they fit into.means producing a text. Translators do not have the burden of inventing the ideas to be communicated in the text, but they may well suffer the full agony of textual composition: the never-ending quest for the right expression, the perpetual temptation to improve through revision. Conversely, a translator may also enjoy many of the liberties of textual creation: paraphrase, explication, revision, localization, popularization, and other kinds of textual manipulation are part and parcel of the translator’s work.translator’s freedom is limited, however. He works under all the restrictions that original text producers must also accept, but there is an additional limitation on the translator’s text production. Like all other texts, translations have intertextual relationships with other texts, and since any type of text (in any language) may become subject to translation (into any other language), the intertextuality of translations is no less complex than for non-translated texts.nearly all other types of text, however, a translation always has a unique intertextual relationship with another text, with the source language text of which it is the target language version. It is this unique or privileged intertextual relationship which most obviously defines the possibilities and the limits of the translator’s work and makes translation a special kind of text production method.necessarily involves two texts (in two different languages), a source text and a target text. In successful translation, the two texts are traditionally said to be equivalent., it is difficult to find two people who agree about the meaning of this concept. Reiss tried to restrict its application making it a special case of adequacy. Others claim that equivalence and adequacy are entirely distinct concepts. Most people working with translation theory would gladly do away with the term for once and for all. But doing away with the word is one thing. Doing away with the concept of equivalence is quite another and the concept keeps rearing its mystifying head whenever translation is discussed.factors have come together to establish contemporary emphasis on the communicative aspects of translate They have come into focus because of a strong general interest in the pragmatics of linguistic communication, and, by its very nature, translation puts all the dimensions of culture-and situation-specific communication squarely before its practitioner. The task of the translator is always to produce a specific text designed to serve specific purpose.a text, a translation is not primarily determined by a source text, but by its own skopos. This axiom provides a theoretical argument for describing translations in terms of original text production and against describing translations (as is traditionally done) in terms of equivalence with another text (in another language).and cultural arguments for emphasising the productive, original and creative aspects of translation have also been brought forward. Translations are often criticized for warping the target language, or of impairing the purity of the target language and target culture.purpose of the majority of translations produced today is to function as independent, ‘autonomous’ or ‘self-sufficient’ texts. Typically, e.g. in tourist information, in directions for use, and in manuals, an institution or a company or corporation takes the place of author and translator. The text contains no explicit indication who authored (and translated) it, or whether the text is a translation or not. Obviously, therefore, whenever texts are produced through translation, no trace of this must be detectable in the body of the text either., a large portion of the work of professional, industrial translators is defined by this textual norm. The texts they are required to produce must be ‘functional’. Above all, they must seem ‘natural’. So natural, in fact, that translations are indistinguishable from originals.

1.2 Lexical problems of translation

study of the language is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic realm. It becomes a tangle begetting multiple language discrepancies. That is why linguistics compares languages and explores their histories, in order to find and to account for its development and origins to give the answers to this or that language point.to the semantic features of language the meanings of words, their ability to combine with other words, their usage, the place they hold in the lexical system of a language do not concur for the most part. All the same ideas expressed by words coincide in most cases, though the means of expression differ.principal types of lexical correspondences between two languages are as follows:

) Complete correspondences;

) Partial correspondences;

) The absence of correspondences [1: 96].s deal with them more exactly.

) Complete lexical correspondences.correspondence of lexical units of two languages can rarely be found. As a rule they belong to the following lexical groups:

proper names and geographical denominations:

the months and days of the week, numerals.

scientific and technical terms (with the exception of terminological polysemy).

) Partial lexical correspondences.translating the lexical units partial correspondences mostly occur. That happens when a word in the language of the original conforms to several equivalents in the language it is translated into. The reasons of these facts are the following [2:5].

. Most words in a language are polysemantic. Thats why the selection of a word in the process of translating is determined by the context.

. The specification of synonymous order. However, it is necessary to allow for the nature of the semantic signs which an order of synonyms is based on. Therefore, it is advisable to account for the concurring meanings of members of synonymic orders, the difference in lexical and stylistic meanings, and the ability of individual components of orders of synonyms to combine.

. Each word affects the meaning of an object it designates. Not infrequently languages select different properties and signs to describe the same denotations. The way, each language creates its own picture of the world, is known as various principles of dividing reality into parts. Despite the difference of signs, both languages reflect one and the same phenomenon adequately and to the same extent, which must be taken into account when translating words of this kind, as equivalence is not identical to having the same meaning.

. The differences of semantic content of the equivalent words in two languages. These words can be divided into their sub-group:) Words with a differentiated (undifferentiated) meaning: e.g. In English: to swim (of a human being), to sail (of a ship), to float (of an inanimate object);) Words with a broad sense: verbs of state (to be), perception and brainwork (to see, to understand), verbs of action and speech (to go, to say).) «Adverbial verbs with a composite structure which have a semantic content, expressing action and nature at the same time: e.g. the train whistled out of the station.

. Most difficulties are encountered when translating the so called pseudo-international words. The regular correspondence of such words in spelling and sometimes in articulation coupled with the structure of word-building in both languages may lead to a false identification.

. Each language has its own typical rules of combinability. A language has generally established traditional combinations which do not concur with corresponding ones in another language.offer considerable difficulties in the process of translation. It does not always coincide with their combinability in the Ukrainian or Russian languages on account of differences in their semantic structure [3:236]. Frequently one and the same adjective in English combines with a number of nouns, while in Ukrainian and Russian different adjectives are used in combinations of this kind. For this reason it is not easy to translate English adjectives which are more capable of combining than their Ukrainian and Russian equivalents.specific feature of the combinability of English nouns is that some of them can function as the subject of a sentence though they do not belong to a lexico-semantic category.habitual use of a word, which is bound up with the history of the formation and development of its lexical system. This gave shape to clichés peculiar to each language, which are used for describing particular situations.

lexical transformation translation english

CHAPTER 2. LEXICAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN TRANSLATION

2.1 The concept of lexical transformations

sense units of the SL retain their sense and structure in the TL unchanged, other retain only their content (i.e. meaning) unchanged, but alter or completely change their original (source language) form.

The kind of major and minor alterations performed in the structural form of language units performed with the aim of achieving faithfulness in translation are referred to as translators transformations (Korunets, p. 361).are carried out either because of the incompatibility of the TL means of expression, which makes the transplantation of some SL units to it impossible, or in order to retain the style of the SL sense units and thus maintain expressiveness of the SL sense units (ibid., p. 361).all sense units need to be structurally transformed in the process of translation. A considerable number of them are also transplanted to the TL in the form, meaning and structure of the original, i.e. unchanged or little changed (ibid., p. 361).of a source language unit by a target language unit, which is not registered as its dictionary equivalent, is called lexical transformationseparately they have a different from the original referential meaning.

Thus, semantically lexical transformation is substitution of a SL lexical unit by a lexical unit with different inner form, which actualizes the sense of the SL lexical unit realized in the given context.

All types of lexical transformations involve certain semantic changes. As a result the meaning of a word or word combination in source text may be made:

• more specific,
• more general or
• somewhat modified as a way to discovering an appropriate equivalent in TL (Komissarov, Koralova, p. 32).

The reasons that call forth lexical transformations.

1. Differences in semantic structures of the correlated words. The corresponding words may signify the same object — referent or concept of reality — by reflecting their different aspects and so the words denotational meanings cant coincide fully.

E.g.: instant coffee — розчинна кава;room — вітальня;bone — в ялинку.

2. The polysemantic characteristics of the words in two languages that are not commensurable (непропорційні), i.e. the corresponding words have a different number of meanings and, moreover, some of these meanings are quite dissimilar.

3. Different lexical and grammatical valency (combinability) of the corresponding lexical units:.g.: trains run — поїзди ходять.

4. Peculiar usages of words caused by extra-linguistic factors (differences in the ways of life, customs, traditions, etc):.g.: The city is built on terraces rising from the lake

Місто побудоване на терасах, що спускаються до моря. (Antonymic tr.).g.: No smoking.

Курити заборонено. (Antonymic tr.).g.: Never drink unboiled water.

Не пийте сирої води. (Antonymic tr.)

(Т.Р. Левицкая, А.М.Фитерман сс. 28-47)

2.2 Peculiarities of each type of lexical transformations

) Concretization of meaning/ explicatory translation/ specializationof meaning (specialization) is the selection of more concrete or exact translation equivalents or invariants of meanings than those given in bilingual dictionaries. It is the choice of a more specific word in translation which gives a more detailed description of the idea than does the word in source text (Komissarov, Koralova).term suggested by Komissarov, Koralova is explicatory translation.

Its a very common lexical transformation employed in English-Ukrainian translation.often occurs among various translators transformations when he/ she deals with the following groups of lexical units:

• abstract nouns: He died of exposure (піддавання, вплив, дія);
• verbs of movement: leave, go, come, take, move, bring etc;
• polysemantic words (words with a wide range of reference) whose equivalents are too numerous to be listed in any dictionary. The role of the context in translating such words is very important;
• the so called prop-words (words that have lost their primary meaning/ have delixicalized): thing, point, business, creature, pattern, stuff, etc;
• verbs say and tell;
• words having different valeur:
• E.g.: Thank you, — said Margaret, feeling large and awkward and clumsy in all her limbs.
• Дякую вам, — сказала Маргарет, почуваючи себе ніяково і не знаючи, куди подіти свої руки і ноги.
• constructions with the English verb to be always require specification

E.g.: There is a picture on the wall — The book is on the table

• На стіні висить картина; — Книжка лежить на столі;
• He is in Kyiv now
• Зараз він перебуває (знаходиться/ живе) у Києві);
• concretization may be stylistically predermined;
• it is often conditioned by translators orientation toward the reader; by the need to preserve the pragmatics of the source text in translation: the pragmatics of the source text should be as understandable to the target reader (TR) as they are to source reader (SR).

The outer form/ structure of the language unit may be deliberately changed when it requires a concretization. As a result the structure of the sense unit is often extended or shortened in the target language without changing its proper meaning (Korunets).g.: limbs — руки й ноги.to illustrate concretization

1. You have no business to say such a thing! (Galsworthy)

Ти не маєш права цього говорити.

1. He had left that same morning for Valencia with the car and the forty liters of petrol (Hemingway).

Вияснилось, що він іще вранці чкурнув до Валенсії разом з машиною і сорока літрами бензину.

1. Who can tell the dread with which that catalogue was opened and read! (Thackerey)

Хто здатен змалювати страх, з яким люди розгортали й читали ті списки!

1. Swithin did not exactly card and sing like a bird … (Galsworthy)

Свізін не те що співав і виспівув, наче соловей.

5. We drove up from Valencia with Thomas, and, as we sighted Madrid rising like a great white fortress across the plain from Alcala de Henares, Thomas said … (Hemingway)

Якось я й Томас їхали з Валенсії, і коли помітили Мадрид, що зводився над рівниною за Алькала де Генарес величною білою фортецею, Томас процідив крізь зуби …

. She had quite a reputation for saying the wrong thing … (Galsworthy)

1. They looked at my dress and mammas as if they had never seen a silk gown before (Ch. Bronte).

А як вони витріщились на моє і мамине вбрання! Так, наче зроду не бачили шовкової сукні (pragmatic toning)

8. The play went well from the beginning; the audience, notwithstanding the season, a fashionable one, were pleased after the holidays to find themselves once more in a playhouse, and were ready to be amused (Maugham).

Пєсу публіка сприймала прекрасно з першої ж сцени. Незважаючи на те, що було літо, в залі збиралися вершки суспільства, публіка раділа з того, що після літнього відпочинку знову опинилася в театрі, й ладна була сміятися та аплодувати з найменшого приводу (неподходящее время года: после летнего перерыва).

b) Generalization of meaning

Generalization is the opposite procedure; i.e. the use of an equivalent with a more general meaning; when a generic name is preferred to a specific name.is rather common in translation from English into Ukrainian..g.: I packed my two Gladstones.

Я спакувала свої два чемодани.

For obvious reasons the translator preferred a generic name to the specific name of the kind of the suitcase that the Ukrainian reader is unfamiliar with.

English often makes use of general terms to describe very definite objects or actions:

• these may be British units of measument such as:
• linear measure,
• square measure,
• liquid measure,
• cubic,
• weight measure etc.

which are, in many cases, not transformed into our metric system, when being translated into Ukrainian. Their meanings are often conveyed by lexical units with more general meanings:.g.1: The walls were painted with anti-war slogans 12 inches high.

На стінах були написані великими літерами анти-воєнні лозунги.

E.g.2: The temperature is an easy ninety — Спека нестерпна.

• typical of English is also the usage of numerals for the sake of precise description of objects and actions. Transplanting them to Ukrainian would lead to literalism and violate stylistic norms of the Ukrainian language.
• E.g.1: He was just six foot tall and he had a gallant bearing (Maugham).
• Він був високий на зріст і стрункий.
• E.g.2: Asked whether in his 100-minute talk with the Prime Minister on Tuesday he had invited him to visit Kyiv the Foreign Minister said: Such a matter did not arise yesterday.
• Коли Міністра закордонних справ запитали, чи його запросили відвідати Київ під час переговорів з Премєр-міністром, які тривали понад півтори години, той відповів: Цього питання не торкались вчора.
• 100-minute talks — переговори, що тривали понад годину (півтори години)
• orientation towards the reader is another serious reason why a translator resorts to generalization;
• it is often stylistically predetermined.
• Examples to illustrate generalization
• 1. …on his daily adventure from the bow window (вікно з виступом; еркер) at the Haversnake to the billiard room at the Red Rottle (Galsworthy)
• …Джордж, з його щоденними мандрівками від вікна в Геверснейку до більярдної в Червоному Кухлі.
• 2. Та лише роззявив рота, як отримав доброго запорозького стусана під ребра (Гоголь)
• But hardly had he opened his mouth as they gave him a heavy punch in the belly.
• 3. He boasted that his weight had not changed since he was twenty, and for years, wet or fine, he had got up early morning at eight to put on shorts and a sweater and have a run round Regents Park (Maugham).
• Майкл пишався тим, що його вага залишається незмінною відтоді, як йому стукнуло двадцять, і вже багато років, в будь-яку погоду, він підводився о 8, вдягав шорти і виконував свій моціон, оббігав Ріджен парк.
• 4. Margery gave him his black Homburg hat and opened the door for Julia and Michael to go out (Maugham).
• Марджері подала йому чорного фетрового капелюха й відчинила перед ними двері . — врахування прагматичного фактора (Бархударов, с. 130)
• 5. She was jealous of his friends at the Green Room Club (Maugham).
• Вона ревнувала його до приятелів з артистичного клубу (замість: з клубу ˝Зелена кімната˝)
• c) Modulation
• Modulation (sense extension/ expansion) is replacing a source language unit with a target language unit which is not its dictionary equivalent but the meaning of which can be logically inferred from it.
• It is just another way of referring to the same object or an aspect of the same situation.
• The relationship of the substitute with the original may be of different types:
• the substitute has often a cause-and-effect or effect-and-cause relationship with the original;
• Other types may be:
• cause and process;
• process and cause;
• a part and the whole;
• an object and the container;
• the container and the thing contained;
• the material and the thing made of it;
• the agent and the action;
• the action and the agent etc.

The list is in no way complete.great many of such substitutions are based on metonymic relations.transformations cannot always be treated as deliberate or subjective, more often than not they are objectively required. In most cases they are conditioned by differences in lexical valency and are often used for stylistic reasons.

Examples to illustrate modulation

1. He is in jail in Valencia now. I hope he likes it (Hemingway).

Тепер він сидить у Валенсійській вязниці. Гадаю, йому там непогано. (effect- cause)

2. The room in which she sat was connected by three archways with the big dining-room where they supped and danced; amid the crowd doubtless were a certain number who had been to the play. (Maugham).

Зала, у якій вона сиділа, зєднувалась склепінчастим проходом з великою танцювальною залою; серед публіки, безперечно, були люди, що прийшли сюди прямо з Сіддонс-театру. (які бачили її сьогодні в театрі)

. Soames has stopped to look in at a picture shop (Galsworthy

Соамс зупинився, щоб поглянути на виставлені у вітрині картини. ) (container-object contained)

. Hindley and Cathy contented themselves with looking and listening till peace was restored (Emily Bronte).

Хіндлі і Кеті лиш спостерігали і слухали, доки старші не помирились. (result-prosess)

d) Antonymic (antonymous) translation

Antonymic (antonymous) translation is substitution of an affirmative in sense and structure source language unit for a semantically corresponding negative in structure sense unit of the TL and vice versa (Korunets).

E.g.: mind your own business — не втручайся не в свої справи;

not infrequently — часто;away from me — не підходь до мене.

(It represents a way of rendering when an affirmative in structure language unit (word, word-combination, sentence) is conveyed via a negative in sense or structure but identical in content language unit or vice versatranslation describes the situation, as it were, from the opposite point of view and renders an affirmative source language structure by a negative target language one or vice versa (Komissarov, Koralova).

The device is resorted to in the following cases:

• when there is no other way of expressing the sense of the source language sense unit:
• E.g.: take it easy — не хвилюйся/ не переживай;
• Mind your own business — Не суй носа не в свої справи.
• At close quarters — недалеко один від одного, на невеликій відстані.
• Do you mind this? — Ви не заперечуєте?
• when there are two negations in the SL sense units:
• E.g.: not uncommon — звичайний;
• not infrequently — часто;
• Я не нездужую нівроку (Шевченко) — I feel/ am perfectly well.
• to achieve a fuller expressiveness:
• E.g.: I hope youll stay, he said in a tired voice.
• Сподіваюсь, ви не втечете.
• when stylistically required:
• E.g.: keep your head — не падай духом;
• The transformation in this case may be sometimes avoided. It may have another version: Вище голову! The choice of the form of expression/ transformation rests with the translator only.
• it may be conditioned by differences in the lexical valency:

E.g.: snowdrifts three feet deep — cнігові замети заввишки в один метр (висотою 1м).

Examples to illustrate antonymic translation

. Dont move I beg you Watson! (C.Doyle)

Дуже вас прошу, Вотсоне, залиштеся тут.

1. I dont think Ill find them (Hemingway)

Гадаю, я їх не знайду.

1. Ill stay with you until I am dead (Hemingway).

Поки я живий, я тебе не покину.

1. She would show him that she did not care (Galsworthy).

Вона йому покаже, що їй до нього байдужісінько.

1. I am a strange old man (Hemingway).

Я не звичайний старий.

1. Five and you nearly were killed when I brought the fish… (Hemingway)

Пять років, і тебе ледь не вбило, коли я втягнув до човна ще дужчу рибину…

1. You cant be sick, said Mildred (R.Bradbury)

Невже ти захворів? — запитала Мілдред.

1. I didnt say anything (Hemingway).

Я слухав мовчки.

. Keep out of trouble, Ettore (Hemingway).

Не вскочте в якусь халепу, Етторе.

. I watched her face (Hemingway).

Я не спускав з неї очей.

11. You must know, Gatsby (Fitzgerald)

Не може бути, щоб ви не знали, Гетсбі.

. I wonder if Michael remembered to have sent tea along to the queues (Maugham)

Чи не забув Майкл подбати про те, щоб людям у чергах до кас роздавали чай?

13. I want to be out before it is light (Hemingway).

Хочу вийти з бухти, поки не розвидніє.

. Helens finding it hard to get work these days…

Зараз Гелен нелегко знайти роботу…

. But still the apprehension that filled her was not unpleasant (Maugham).

І все ж хвилювання, що охопило її, було приємним.

Antonymic translation is employed for the sake of achieving faithfulness in conveying content or the necessary expressiveness of sense units.) Compensation techniquemore specific transformation which may come handy to the translator when he is baffled by an apparently unsolvable translation is called the compensation technique.

Compensation technique is a deliberate introduction of some additional elements in translation to make up for the loss of similar elements at the same or an earlier stage.s resorted to when a translator deals with equivalent lacking elements.are the elements having no precise equivalent in the TL and which cant be rendered by the same means? They are:

) The speech of foreigners and dialects;

) Individual peculiarities of speech;

) Diminutive and augmentative usages;

4) Equivalent-lacking grammatical categories;

5) Different stylistic figures (play upon words, metaphors, periphrases, irony etc.).

A translator must be ready to render the speech of foreigners, dialect forms and illiterate speech in the TL forms. It goes without saying that one can hardly render, say, cockney dialect using the Western Ukrainian dialect forms. There is no universal recipe for this translation problem and each such case requires an individual approach.some cases contaminated forms (the distortions in the target grammar and phonetics) are used to imitate the speech of foreigners. Sometimes both SL and TL have developed accepted forms of representing the contaminated speech by persons of foreign origin. For example, the speech of a Chinese can be represented in English and in Ukrainian in a conventional way, which facilitates the translator’s task:

E.g.: Me blingee beer. Now you pay.

Моя плинесла пиво. Твоя типель платити.

If no such tradition exists, the translator has to select some possible contaminated Ukrainian forms to produce the desired effect:.g.: When you see him quid then you quick see him perm whale — (the speech of a Kanaka)

Коли твоя бачив спрут, тоді твоя скоро-скоро бачив кашалот.

It is not always necessary to give the contaminated forms of each word in a TL utterance. It may be sufficient to indicate the speech of a foreigner with the help of a few deliberate distortions of grammatical or phonetic norms. Much depends here on the pragmatic intent of the original utterance.

The individual peculiarities of speech

The woman character of the story Arrangement in Black and White by D. Parker often speaks incorrect English. Her highly emotional speech abounds in wrong forms of some words..g.: Oh, Im finely, she said. Just simply finely. Listen. I want you to do me the most terrible favor. Will you? Will you please? Pretty please?

О, в мене все красненько, відповіла вона. Просто-таки красненько. Послухайте, я хочу, щоб ви мені зробили страшенну послугу. Зробите? Будь ласка, зробите? Дуже вас прошу.wrong use of finely instead of the correct form fine is not easy to translate into Ukrainian where there is no corresponding corrupted form of this word. Hence, the stylistically wrong employment of the adverb красненько with the aim of compensating the corruption in Ukrainian translation.

Diminutives have a very poor representation in English (only some nouns) but there is a very large quantity of them in Ukrainian, where they exist practically among all parts of speech. Cf: English: dear — dearie; stream — streamlet;

Ukrainian: -есеньк, -оньк; -очок (лебідонька, малесенький, питоньки).English they may be used only as diminutives or they may express diminutive evaluation as well, which is identified in context.

It is difficult to say, for example, whether booklet, manikin or hillock are diminutives only or diminutives and evaluatives at the same time. As diminutives they mean брошюра, карлик and горбок respectively, and as diminutive evaluatives they may express the meanings of книжечка/ брошурка, чоловічок (small and handsome), горбочок (not high and pleasant hillock).distinction is almost always clearly identified and expressed in Ukrainian where diminutive suffixes may also point to an escalating gradation of a diminutive quality of a noun: дівчина; дівчинка; дівча; дівчатко; дівчаточко; дівонька; дівчинонька.

Lordy, in with you quick.

Neither has the English language any morphological means to express explicitly the augmentative and evaluative meanings of Ukrainian lexemes (mostly nouns). As a result, they acquire in English an objectively predetermined form of explicit expression by means of word-groups or sentences. For example, the pejorative (mostly contemptuous) meanings of a number of Ukrainian augmentative nouns will have the following English outer form expression:

вовчище — a big formidable wolf/ a big monster of a wolf;

дубище — a very thick and tall/ ramous oak-tree;

здоровило — a healthy/ robust fellow; a regular/ robust maypole;

пянюга — a miserable heavy drunkard; a disgusting inebriate; a three-bottle man.

LITERATURE USED

1. Curme G.O. English Grammar. — N.Y., 2003, p. 251

. English Learners Digest. — 2004. — №3 (243), p.15

. Ganshina M.A. English Grammar. — Moskow, 1994, p. 369

. Jespersen O. Essetials of English Grammar. — Ldn., 1996. Koshevaya I.G. The Theory of English. P. 240

By Robby

If you are new here please read this first.

IMPORTANT! Please grab a piece of paper and a pen before you start reading this article as you’ll be required to write down a few English words if you decide to participate in a small experiment!

In this article we’ll look at how important it is to acquire new vocabulary in context, and how much time you may be wasting learning new words separately, just by learning meanings of new words or even worse – learning them through a translation in your native language. I’ve been discussing it on my blog and in my videos quite a lot, but I’ve never actually brought up certain examples to show you the effectiveness of learning new English words through context.

So, let’s do an experiment first.

It’s very important you participate in this because if you don’t, you won’t be able to feel the difference between learning new vocabulary with and without context, so please follow my instructions, all right? 😉

Basically you’ll have to make effort to memorize a few quite sophisticated English adjectives but in case you know a few or even all of those words, please don’t be offended! I’m not trying to insult your intelligence by making assumptions about your English vocabulary; I’ll be doing my best to pick out a few English words that aren’t heard that often in normal daily conversations or in media.

Now, please read the following five English words with the corresponding explanations and try to do your best to memorize those words and their meanings:

Detrimental – causing damage, harm or injury.

Untenable – being such that defense or maintenance is impossible.

Precarious – dangerously lacking in security or stability.

Impertinent – rude, lacking good manners.

Adverse – opposite to one’s interests or welfare; harmful or unfavorable.

So, these were the five adjectives and I have to confess that I purposefully chose these words because they all describe something negative just to make it more difficult for you to memorize them!

But if you think it was unfair and I should have given you words describing different concepts so that you’d have a better chance of memorizing them, wait till you see how EASY it’s going to be for you to remember these new English words if you learn them contextually!

So now read the descriptions of those words and try to recall what the respective adjectives were. Write them down on a piece of paper and number them 1 to 5. And please don’t cheat – focus only on the paragraph below and don’t try to look down where the answer is written! 😉

1. Rude, lacking good manners – …
2. Causing damage, harm or injury – …
3. Opposite to one’s interests or welfare; harmful or unfavorable – …
4. Being such that defense or maintenance is impossible – …
5. Dangerously lacking in security or stability – …

Now, please compare your answers with the list below and see how many of the adjectives you got right:

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

1. Impertinent
2. Detrimental
3. Adverse
4. Untenable
5. Precarious

Well, how well did you do? I hope you got some of them right – and well done if you could remember all five adjectives despite my attempts to make if as difficult as possible!

Anyway, what I’m trying to prove here today is that it’s very important to acquire new English vocabulary in context, so I’d like you to think about how effectively you could use these five words in your English conversations, or in writing.

How likely do you think it is that you will start using these new English words when you speak with other English speakers?

Do you think you could easily blend them into sentences as you speak?

I hate to disappoint you, but personally I think you couldn’t, and I guess you’ve come to the same conclusion yourself, am I not right?

So where’s the problem? Why is that we, foreigners, when learning new English words the traditional way, struggle to use them in actual conversations? And why if we do use them, our speech is quite often very hesitant and we keep thinking of what would be the best fitting word to use when describing a certain concept, event, person or a thing?

The answer is quite simple, my friend! When you learn a meaning of a new English word just on its own, it’s very difficult for your mind to create a relationship between that word and other English words in your mind ❗

There are probably dozens of very similar English words that you already know and most importantly – you’ve been using them in certain situations and certain context so it’s much easier for your mind to stick with what you already know than to use that new English word.

Also, you may find it hard to speak fluently when trying to use such new vocabulary words because you have to spend too much time analyzing if that particular word can be used in a certain context. You basically have to go back to that word’s description like a dictionary entry in your mind and see if it fits in the particular sentence.

And another huge problem is – how do we know that we use the particular word right? I guess you already know that we can’t use English words the same way we’d use the respective words in our native languages because every language has its own unique way of using certain words and if you just create word strings as a direct translation from your language, you may come up with silly things in English!

So the million dollar question is:

How can we memorize new English words effectively and then use them like native English speakers?

Before I answer this question, let me introduce you to a new concept.

Imagine that every word in the English language has little hooks attached to them and when you form a sentence, words are hooking up with each other. Now, imagine that certain words are more likely to hook up with each other and less with others, so, for instance, a word combination ‘keep in touch’ is what native English speakers would say because these three words are normally hooked up with each other. If you try to replace the word ‘keep’ with other words like ‘stay’, or ‘remain’, it would be understandable what you meant but it wouldn’t sound right.

So, now we can go back to the original question – how we can memorize new English words effectively and use them like native speakers do.

The trick is to memorize what other words your new word is usually hooked up with and that is going to make it an awful lot easier for you to memorize it! And you won’t have to refer back to that word’s description in your mind to use it in a sentence because you’ll already know what words it goes together with ❗

So, let’s do our little experiment once more, but this time I’ll give you a word combination instead of a description and you’ll see how easy it is to memorize new English vocabulary if you go down this route:

• Detrimental effect – a negative effect.
• Adverse weather conditions – bad weather conditions.
• Precarious work – part-time, temporary and fixed term employment where there’s less certainty and stability for the employee.
• Untenable position – a position you can no longer hold.
• Impertinent behavior – rude behavior.

Now, what should have happened when you read these adjective and noun combinations is – new relations should have formed between the adjectives you weren’t familiar with and the nouns that are very well known to you. Of course, it would take more repetitions to make sure those word combinations or so called collocations get imprinted into your mind, but I hope you’ll feel the difference in terms of your ability to remember those specific adjectives before and NOW!

OK, now let’s do our memory test once more, and this time you have to write down the word combos I gave you a minute ago.

1. Negative effect – …
2. Bad weather conditions – …
3. Part-time, temporary and fixed term employment where there’s less certainty and stability for the employee – …
4. A position you can no longer hold – …
5. Rude behavior – …

And here’s the answers, please compare the collocations from below with the ones you wrote on your piece of paper:

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

SCROLL DOWN

1. Detrimental effect
2. Adverse weather conditions
3. Precarious work
4. Untenable position
5. Impertinent behavior

How did you fare this time? Did you feel the difference between memorizing those words purely by their descriptions and now, when you memorized them contextually?

I bet you did, and that’s what you have to keep doing when learning new English words in future. Forget about hammering new words just on their own into your mind – the chances are, you won’t be able to use them as part of a fluent English speech. Your new approach has to involve memorizing any new English word you hear within context!

Remember about the hooks – every English word has a pair of hooks to hoop up with others and your aim as an English improver is to learn work combinations as opposed to single words ❗

Robby

P.S. Would you like to find out why I’m highlighting some of the text in red? Read this article and you’ll learn why it’s so important to learn idiomatic expressions and how it will help you to improve your spoken English!

P.S.S. Are you serious about your spoken English improvement? Check out my English Harmony System HERE!

P.S. Are you serious about your spoken English improvement? Check out the English Harmony System HERE!

Тема 1. Types of
language Units

1. Lexicology

2. Language Units.

3. Structural Types of words.

4. Word combination

1.  
Lexicology

A word  can be
divided into smaller sense units — morphemes. The morpheme is the smallest
meaningful language unit. The morpheme consists of a class of variants,
allomorphs, which are either phonologically or morphologically conditioned,
e.g. please, pleasant, pleasure.
Morphemes are divided into two large groups: lexical morphemes and grammatical
(functional) morphemes. Both lexical and grammatical morphemes can be free and
bound. Free lexical morphemes are roots of words which express the lexical
meaning of the word, they coincide with the stem of simple words. Free
grammatical morphemes are function words: articles, conjunctions and
prepositions ( the, with, and).
Bound lexical morphemes are affixes: prefixes (dis-), suffixes (-ish) and also
blocked (unique) root morphemes (e.g. Fri-day, cran-berry). Bound grammatical
morphemes are inflexions (endings), e.g. -s for the Plural of nouns, -ed for
the Past Indefinite of regular verbs, -ing for the Present Participle, -er for
the Comparative degree of adjectives.
In the second half of the twentieth century the English word building system
was enriched by creating so called splinters which scientists include in the
affixation stock of the Modern English wordbuilding system. Splinters are the
result of clipping the end or the beginning of a word and producing a number of
new words on the analogy with the primary word-group. For example, there are
many words formed with the help of the splinter mini- (apocopе (апокопа, отпадение последнего слога или звука в слове) produced by clipping the word «miniature»), such as
«miniplane», «minijet», «minicycle», «minicar», «miniradio» and many others.
All of these words denote objects of smaller than normal dimensions.
   On the analogy with «mini-» there
appeared the splinter «maxi»- (apocopе produced
by clipping the word «maximum»), such words as «maxi-series», «maxi-sculpture»,
«maxi-taxi» and many others appeared in the language.
   There are also splinters which are
formed by means of apheresis, that is clipping the beginning of a word.

In the seventieths of the twentieth century there was
a political scandal in the hotel «Watergate» where the Democratic Party of the
USA had its pre-election headquarters. Republicans managed to install bugs
there and when they were discovered there was a scandal and the ruling American
government had to resign. The name «Watergate» acquired the meaning «a
political scandal», «corruption». On the analogy with this word quite a number
of other words were formed by using the splinter «gate» (apheresis of the word
«Watergate»), such as: «Irangate», »Westlandgate», »shuttlegate», »milliongate»
etc. The splinter «gate» is added mainly to Proper names: names of people with
whom the scandal is connected or a geographical name denoting the place where
the scandal occurred.
The splinter «mobile» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word
«automobile» and is used to denote special types of automobiles, such as:
«artmobile», «bookmobile», «snowmobile», «tourmobile» etc.

     3.    According to
the nature and the number of morphemes constituting a word there are different
structural types of words in English: simple, derived, compound,
compound-derived. 
Simple words consist of one root morpheme and an inflexion (in many cases the
inflexion is zero), e.g. «seldom», «chairs», «longer», «asked».
Derived words consist of one root morpheme, one or several affixes and an
infection, e.g. «deristricted (снимать ограничения)», «unemployed».
Compound words consist of two or more root morphemes and an inflexion, e.g.
«baby-moons»(искусств.спутник земли), «wait-and-see (policy) выжидательная политика».
Compound-derived words consist of two or more root morphemes, one or more
affixes and an inflexion, e.g. «middle-of-the-roaders» человек занимающий половинчатую позицию, «job-hopper»летун, человек часто меняющий работу.
   

When speaking about the structure of words stems also
should be mentioned. The stem is the part of the word which remains unchanged
throughout the paradigm of the word, e.g. the stem «hop» can be found in the
words: «hop», «hops», «hopped», «hopping». The stem «hippie» can be found in
the words: «hippie», «hippies», «hippie’s», «hippies’». The stem «job-hop» can
be found in the words : «job-hop», «job-hops», «job-hopped», «job-hopping». 
So stems, the same as words, can be simple, derived, compound and
compound-derived. Stems have not only the lexical meaning but also grammatical
(part-of-speech) meaning, they can be noun stems («girl» in the adjective
«girlish»), adjective stems («girlish» in the noun «girlishness»), verb stems
(«expell» in the noun «expellee») etc. They differ from words by the absence of
inflexions in their structure, they can be used only in the structure of words.
Sometimes it is rather difficult to distinguish between simple and derived
words, especially in the cases of phonetic borrowings from other languages and
of native words with blocked (unique) root morphemes, e.g. «perestroika»,
«cranberry», «absence» etc.

In the English language of the second half of the twentieth century there
developed so called block compounds, that is compound words which have a
uniting stress but a split spelling, such as «chat show», «pinguin suit» etc.
Such compound words can be easily mixed up with word-groups of the type «stone
wall», so called nominative binomials

два названия. Such linguistic units serve to denote a notion which
is more specific than the notion expressed by the second component and consists
of two nouns, the first of which is an attribute to the second one. If we
compare a nominative binomial with a compound noun with the structure N+N we
shall see that a nominative binomial has no unity of stress. The change of the
order of its components will change its lexical meaning, e.g. «vid kid» is «a
kid who is a video fan» while «kid vid» means «a video-film for kids» or else
«lamp oil» means «oil for lamps» and «oil lamp» means «a lamp which uses oil
for burning».
Thus, we can draw the conclusion that in Modern English the following language
units can be mentioned: morphemes, splinters, words, nominative binomials,
non-idiomatic and idiomatic word-combinations, sentences.