Word formed from other words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about word-formation. For a method of teaching how to read, see synthetic phonics.

In linguistics, a blend (sometimes called blend word, lexical blend, portmanteau, or portmanteau word) is a word formed from parts of two or more other words. At least one of these parts is not a morph (the realization of a morpheme) but instead a mere splinter, a fragment that is normally meaningless. In the words of Valerie Adams:

In words such as motel, boatel and Lorry-Tel, hotel is represented by various shorter substitutes – ‑otel, ‑tel, or ‑el – which I shall call splinters. Words containing splinters I shall call blends.^{[1][n 1]}

Classification[edit]

Blends of two or more words may be classified from each of three viewpoints: morphotactic, morphonological, and morphosemantic.^[2]

Morphotactic classification[edit]

Blends may be classified morphotactically into two kinds: total and partial.^[2]

Total blends[edit]

In a total blend, each of the words creating the blend is reduced to a mere splinter.^[2] Some linguists limit blends to these (perhaps with additional conditions): for example, Ingo Plag considers «proper blends» to be total blends that semantically are coordinate, the remainder being «shortened compounds».^[3]

Commonly for English blends, the beginning of one word is followed by the end of another:

• boom + hoist → boost ^{[n 2]}
• breakfast + lunch → brunch ^{[n 2]}

Much less commonly in English, the beginning of one word may be followed by the beginning of another:

• teleprinter + exchange → telex ^{[n 2]}
• American + Indian → Amerind ^{[n 2]}

Some linguists do not regard beginning+beginning concatenations as blends, instead calling them complex clippings,^[4] clipping compounds^[5] or clipped compounds.^[6]

Unusually in English, the end of one word may be followed by the end of another:

• Red Bull + margarita → bullgarita ^{[n 2]}
• Hello Kitty + delicious → kittylicious ^{[n 2]}

A splinter of one word may replace part of another, as in three coined by Lewis Carroll in «Jabberwocky»:

• chuckle + snort → chortle ^{[n 2]}
• flimsy + miserable → mimsy
• slimy + lithe → slithy ^{[n 2]}

They are sometimes termed intercalative blends; these words are among the original «portmanteaus» for which this meaning of the word was created. ^[7]

Partial blends[edit]

In a partial blend, one entire word is concatenated with a splinter from another.^[2] Some linguists do not recognize these as blends.^[8]

An entire word may be followed by a splinter:

• dumb + confound → dumbfound ^{[n 2]}
• fan + magazine → fanzine ^{[n 3]}

A splinter may be followed by an entire word:

• Brad + Angelina → Brangelina ^{[n 2]}
• American + Indian → Amerindian ^{[n 2]}

An entire word may replace part of another:

• adorable + dork → adorkable ^{[n 2]}
• disgusting + gross → disgrossting ^{[n 2]}

These have also been called sandwich words,^[9] and classed among intercalative blends.^[7]

(When two words are combined in their entirety, the result is considered a compound word rather than a blend. For example, bagpipe is a compound, not a blend, of bag and pipe.)

Morphonological classification[edit]

Morphonologically, blends fall into two kinds: overlapping and non-overlapping.^[2]

Overlapping blends[edit]

Overlapping blends are those for which the ingredients’ consonants, vowels or even syllables overlap to some extent. The overlap can be of different kinds.^[2] These are also called haplologic blends.^[10]

There may be an overlap that is both phonological and orthographic, but with no other shortening:

• anecdote + dotage → anecdotage ^{[n 2]}
• pal + alimony → palimony ^{[n 2]}

The overlap may be both phonological and orthographic, and with some additional shortening to at least one of the ingredients:

• California + fornication → Californication ^{[n 4]}
• picture + dictionary → pictionary ^{[n 2]}

Such an overlap may be discontinuous:

• politician + pollution → pollutician ^{[n 5]}
• beef + buffalo → beefalo ^{[n 2]}

These are also termed imperfect blends.^[11][12]

It can occur with three components:

• camisade + cannibalism + ballistics → camibalistics ^{[n 6]}
• meander + Neanderthal + tale → meandertale ^{[n 6]}

The phonological overlap need not also be orthographic:

• back + acronym → backronym ^{[n 2]}
• war + orgasm → wargasm ^{[n 2]}

If the phonological but non-orthographic overlap encompasses the whole of the shorter ingredient, as in

• sin + cinema → sinema ^{[n 2]}
• sham + champagne → shampagne ^{[n 2]}

then the effect depends on orthography alone. (They are also called orthographic blends.^[13])

An orthographic overlap need not also be phonological:

• smoke + fog → smog ^{[n 2]}
• binary + unit → bit ^{[n 2]}

For some linguists, an overlap is a condition for a blend.^[14]

Non-overlapping blends[edit]

Non-overlapping blends (also called substitution blends) have no overlap, whether phonological or orthographic:

• California + Mexico → Calexico ^{[n 2]}
• beautiful + delicious → beaulicious ^{[n 4]}

Morphosemantic classification[edit]

Morphosemantically, blends fall into two kinds: attributive and coordinate.^[2]

Attributive blends[edit]

Attributive blends (also called syntactic or telescope blends) are those in which one of the ingredients is the head and the other is attributive. A porta-light is a portable light, not a ‘light-emitting’ or light portability; light is the head. A snobject is a snobbery-satisfying object and not an objective or other kind of snob; object is the head.^[2]

As is also true for (conventional, non-blend) attributive compounds (among which bathroom, for example, is a kind of room, not a kind of bath), the attributive blends of English are mostly head-final and mostly endocentric. As an example of an exocentric attributive blend, Fruitopia may metaphorically take the buyer to a fruity utopia (and not a utopian fruit); however, it is not a utopia but a drink.

Coordinate blends[edit]

Coordinate blends (also called associative or portmanteau blends) combine two words having equal status, and have two heads. Thus brunch is neither a breakfasty lunch nor a lunchtime breakfast but instead some hybrid of breakfast and lunch; Oxbridge is equally Oxford and Cambridge universities. This too parallels (conventional, non-blend) compounds: an actor–director is equally an actor and a director.^[2]

Two kinds of coordinate blends are particularly conspicuous: those that combine (near‑) synonyms:

• gigantic + enormous → ginormous
• insinuation + innuendo → insinuendo

and those that combine (near‑) opposites:

• transmitter + receiver → transceiver
• friend + enemy → frenemy

Blending of two roots[edit]

Blending can also apply to roots rather than words, for instance in Israeli Hebrew:

• רמזור ramzor ‘traffic light’ combines רמז √rmz ‘hint’ and אור or ‘light’.
• מגדלור migdalor ‘lighthouse’ combines מגדל migdal ‘tower’ and אור or ‘light’.
• Israeli דחפור dakhpór ‘bulldozer’ hybridizes (Mishnaic Hebrew>) Israeli דחפ √dħp ‘push’ and (Biblical Hebrew>) Israeli חפר √ħpr ‘dig'[…]
• Israeli שלטוט shiltút ‘zapping, surfing the channels, flipping through the channels’ derives from
  • (i) (Hebrew>) Israeli שלט shalát ‘remote control’, an ellipsis – like English remote (but using the noun instead) – of the (widely known) compound שלט רחוק shalát rakhók – cf. the Academy of the Hebrew Language’s שלט רחק shalát rákhak; and
  • (ii) (Hebrew>) Israeli שטוט shitút ‘wandering, vagrancy’. Israeli שלטוט shiltút was introduced by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in […] 1996. Synchronically, it might appear to result from reduplication of the final consonant of shalát ‘remote control’.
• Another example of blending which has also been explained as mere reduplication is Israeli גחלילית gakhlilít ‘fire-fly, glow-fly, Lampyris‘. This coinage by Hayyim Nahman Bialik blends (Hebrew>) Israeli גחלת gakhélet ‘burning coal’ with (Hebrew>) Israeli לילה láyla ‘night’. Compare this with the unblended חכלילית khakhlilít ‘(black) redstart, Phœnicurus’ (<Biblical Hebrew חכליל ‘dull red, reddish’). Synchronically speaking though, most native Israeli-speakers feel that gakhlilít includes a reduplication of the third radical of גחל √għl. This is incidentally how Ernest Klein^[15] explains gakhlilít. Since he is attempting to provide etymology, his description might be misleading if one agrees that Hayyim Nahman Bialik had blending in mind.»^[16]

«There are two possible etymological analyses for Israeli Hebrew כספר kaspár ‘bank clerk, teller’. The first is that it consists of (Hebrew>) Israeli כסף késef ‘money’ and the (International/Hebrew>) Israeli agentive suffix ר- -ár. The second is that it is a quasi-portmanteau word which blends כסף késef ‘money’ and (Hebrew>) Israeli ספר √spr ‘count’. Israeli Hebrew כספר kaspár started as a brand name but soon entered the common language. Even if the second analysis is the correct one, the final syllable ר- -ár apparently facilitated nativization since it was regarded as the Hebrew suffix ר- -år (probably of Persian pedigree), which usually refers to craftsmen and professionals, for instance as in Mendele Mocher Sforim’s coinage סמרטוטר smartutár ‘rag-dealer’.»^[17]

Lexical selection[edit]

Blending may occur with an error in lexical selection, the process by which a speaker uses his semantic knowledge to choose words. Lewis Carroll’s explanation, which gave rise to the use of ‘portmanteau’ for such combinations, was:

Humpty Dumpty’s theory, of two meanings packed into one word like a portmanteau, seems to me the right explanation for all. For instance, take the two words «fuming» and «furious.» Make up your mind that you will say both words … you will say «frumious.»^[18]

The errors are based on similarity of meanings, rather than phonological similarities, and the morphemes or phonemes stay in the same position within the syllable.^[19]

Use[edit]

Some languages, like Japanese, encourage the shortening and merging of borrowed foreign words (as in gairaigo), because they are long or difficult to pronounce in the target language. For example, karaoke, a combination of the Japanese word kara (meaning empty) and the clipped form oke of the English loanword «orchestra» (J. ōkesutora オーケストラ), is a Japanese blend that has entered the English language. The Vietnamese language also encourages blend words formed from Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary. For example, the term Việt Cộng is derived from the first syllables of «Việt Nam» (Vietnam) and «Cộng sản» (communist).

Many corporate brand names, trademarks, and initiatives, as well as names of corporations and organizations themselves, are blends. For example, Wiktionary, one of Wikipedia’s sister projects, is a blend of wiki and dictionary.

See also[edit]

• Acronym and initialism
• Amalgamation (names)
• Clipping (morphology)
• Conceptual blending
• Hybrid word
• List of blend words
• Phonestheme
• Phono-semantic matching
• Syllabic abbreviation
• Wiktionary category:English blends

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

It’s
a process of creating new words from material available in the
language after a certain structural and semantic formulas and
pattern, forming words by combining root & affix morphemes.

2 Types of word formation:

1)
Compounding (словосложение)

2)
Word – derivation

Within
the types further distinction may be made between the ways of forming
words. The basic way of forming words is word-derivation affixation
and conversion apart from this shortening and a number of minor ways
of formal words such as back-forming, blending, sound imitation are
traditionally referred to formation.

Different types of word
formation:

Affixation
is
the formation of new words by means of suffixes and prefixes to
stemsbasis.

Affixes may be grouped

1) according to their
linguistic origin. We distinguish affixes of Germanic origin (full,
less), of Romanic origin (ion), of Greek origin (ise, izm);

2) according to the parts of
speech. We distinguish noun forming, adj. forming and verb forming
affixes;

3)
according to semantic functions. They may denote persons, quality,
negation. Many suffixes originated from separate words: hood
originated for the noun hood, which meant state or condition; full –
полный
(adj. In O.E) now it is suffix. Suffixes may change the part of
speech: critic (al).

All
suffixes are divided into lexical
and grammatical.

Lexical
suffixes build new word. Productive
affixes. For
ex: read-readable, happy-happiness, act-actor.

Grammatical
suffixes change the grammatical form of a word. Often used to create
neologisms and nonce-words (I
don’t like Sunday evenings: I feel so mondayish).

For ex: finish-finished, say-says, rose-roses.

Some
productive suffixes:

Noun
forming – er,
ing, is, ist, ance

Adj
– forming – y,
ish, ed, able, less

Adv
– forming – ly

Verb – forming — Ize, /ise,
ate

Prefixies
—
Un, die, re

Conversion
(zero derivation) it is one of the major ways of enriching EV &
referrers to the numerous cases of phonetic identity of word forms of
2 words belonging to different part of speech.. The new word has a
meaning which differs from that of original one though it can ><
be associated with it. nurse
(noun) to nurse – to feed

A certain stem is used for the
formation of a categorically different word without a derivative
element being added.

Bag
– to bag, Back – to back , Bottle – to bottle This
specific pattern is very productive in English

The
most popular types are noun →verb or verb→noun To
take off – a take off

Conversion
can be total
or partial.
Partial: the then
president (тогдашний).
An adverb is used as an adjective, only in this particular context.
Total: work
– to work

Conversion
may be the result of shading of English endings. The historical
changes may be briefly outlined as follows: in O.E. a verb and a noun
of the same root were distinguished by their endings. For ex: the
verb ‘to love’ had a form (Old Eng.) ‘lufian’. This verb had
personal conjunctions. The noun ‘love’ had the form ‘lufu’
with different case endings. But in the course of time, the personal
and case endings were lost. There are numerous pairs of words (e. g.
love, n. — to love, v.; work, n. — to work, v.; drink, n. — to
drink, v., etc.) which did, not occur due to conversion but coincided
as a result of certain historical processes (dropping of endings,
simplification of stems) when before that they had different forms
(e. g. O. E. lufu, n. — lufian, v.).

The
two categories of parts of speech especially affected by conversion
are nouns and verbs. Verbs made from nouns are the most numerous
amongst the words produced by conversion: e. g. to
hand, to back, to face, to eye, to mouth, to nose, to dog, to wolf,
to monkey, to can, to coal, to stage, to screen, to room, to floor,
to blackmail, to blacklist, to honeymoon,
and very many others.

Nouns
are frequently made from verbs: do (e. g. This
is the queerest do I»ve ever come across.
Do — event, incident), go (e. g. He
has still plenty of go at his age.
Go — energy), make,
run, find, catch, cut, walk, worry, show, move,
etc. Verbs can also be made from adjectives: to
pale, to yellow, to cool, to grey, to rough
(e. g. We
decided to rough it in the tents as the weather was warm),
etc.

Other
parts of speech are not entirely unsusceptible to conversion as the
following examples show: to
down, to out (as in a newspaper heading Diplomatist Outed from
Budapest), the ups and downs, the ins and outs, like, n, (as in the
like of me and the like of you).

Compounding
& word comparison. Compound
words are made of 2 derivational stems. The types of structure of CW:
neutral,
morphological &syntactic.

In
neutral
compound
the process is released without any linking elements sunflower.
There
are three types of neutral compounds simple compounds went a compound
consist of a simple affixes stems.

Derivate/
derivational compound
— has affixes babysitter.

Contracted
–
has a shorten stems. TV-set

Morphological
C –
few
in number. This type is non productive. Represented by words, where 2
stems are combined by a linking vowel/ consonant Anglo-Saxon,
statesman, craftsmanship.

Syntactic
C
– formed of segments of speech preserving articles, prepositions,
adverbs. Mother-in-law

Reduplication.
New
word are made by stem ether without any phonetic changes Bye-Bye
or variation of a root vowel or consonant ping-pong

Shortening.
There
are 2 ways of producing them:

1.
The word is formed from the syllable of the original word which in
term may loose its beginning –phone,
its ending vac
(vacation) or
both
fridge.

2.
The word is formed from the initial letter of a word group BB,
bf – boyfriend. Acronyms are
shorten words but read as one UNO
[ju:nou]

TYPES OF WF

Sound
imitation – words
are made by imitating different links of sounds that may be produced
by animals, birds…bark
– лаять,
mew – мяукать…some
names of animals, birds & insects are made by SI coo-coo
– кукушка,
crow – ворона.

To
glide, to slip are
supposed to convey the very sound of the smooth easy movement over a
slippery surface.

Back
formation a
verb is produced from a noun by subtraction (вычитание)
bagger
– to bag, babysitter – to babysit

Blending
— Is
blending part of two words to form one word (merging into one word),
combining letters/sounds they have in common as a connecting element.
Smoke
+ fog = smog, Breakfast + lunch = brunch, Smoke + haze = smaze
(дымка)

—
addictive type: they are transformable into a phrase consisting of
two words combined by a conjunction “and” smog
→ smoke & fog

—
blending of restrictive type: transformable into an attributive
phrase, where the first element serves as modifier of a second.
Positron
– positive electron,
Medicare
– medical care

Borrowings.
Contemporary
English is a unique mixture of Germanic & Romanic elements. This
mixing has resulted in the international character of the vocabulary.
In the comparison with other languages English possesses great
richness of vocabulary.

All languages are mixtures to
a greater or lesser extent, but the present day English vocabulary is
unique in this respect.

A brief look on various
historical strata of the English vocabulary:

1) through cultural contacts
with Romans partly already on the continent and all through the
influence of Christianity a very early stratum of Latin-Greek words
entered the language.

Their origin is no longer felt
by the normal speaker today in such word: pound, mint, mustard,
school, dish, chin, cleric, cheese, devil, pepper, street, gospel,
bishop.

The
same can be said about some Scandinavian words (from about the 10^th
century) that today belong to the central core of the vocabulary.

It
means that their frequency is very high. They,
their, them, sky, skin, skill, skirt, ill, dies, take… They
partly supersede the number of OE words OE
heofon – heaven (sky) Niman – take
Steorfan – die

A
more radical change & profound influence on the English
vocabulary occurred on 1066 (Norman Conquest). Until the 15^th
cent., a great number of French words were adopted. They belong to
the areas of court,
church, law, state.

Virtue, religion,
parliament, justice, noble, beauty, preach, honour…

The
influx of the words was the strongest up to the 15^th
cent., but continued up to the 17^th
cent.

Many French borrowings
retained their original pronunciation & stress

Champagne,
ballet, machine, garage…

Separate, attitude,
constitute, introduce…

Adjectives in English –
arrogant, important, patient

Sometimes with their
derivatives:

Demonstrative –
demonstration

Separate – separation

17-18 cc. due to the
establishing of cultural, trade relations many words were borrowed
from Italian, Spanish, Dutch, French.

Italian:
libretto,
violin, opera

Spanish:
hurricane, tomato, tobacco

Dutch:
yacht,
dog, landscape

French:
bouquet,
buffet

From the point of view of
their etymology formal words are normally of classical Romanic
origin, informal – Anglo-Saxon.

Nowadays many Americanisms
become familiar due to the increase of transatlantic travel & the
influence of broadcast media.

Even
in London (Heathrow airport) “baggage”
instead of “luggage”

The present day English
vocabulary is from being homogeneous.

6.
Neologisms new
word expressions are created for new things irrespective of their
scale of importance. They may be all important and concern some
social relationships (new form/ state)
People’s republic. Or
smth threatening the very existence of humanity nuclear
war
or the thing may be short lived. N
is
a newly coined word, phrase/ a new meaning for an existing word / a
word borrowed from another language.

The
development of science and industry technology: black
hole, internet, supermarket.

The
adaptive lexical system isn’t only adding new units but readjust
the ways & means of word formation radio
detection and ranging – RADAR

The
lex. System may adopt itself by combining several word-building
processes face-out
(noun) – the radioactive dust descending through the air after an
anatomic explosion. This
word was coined by composition/ compounding & conversion.

Teach
–in (n) –a student conference/ series of seminars on some burning
issue of the day, meaning some demonstration on protest. This
pattern is very frequent lis–in
, due-in
means protest demonstration when fluking traffic. Bionies
– the
combination of bio & electron.

Back
formation:
air-condion
– air-conditioner – air-conditioning

Semi-affixes
(могут
быть
как
самостоятельные
слова)
chairman
used
to be not numerous and might be treated as exceptions now, evolving
into separate set.

Some
N abscessed with smth and containing the elements mad
& happy: powermad, moneymad, auto-happy.

Conversion, composition,
semantic change are in constant use when coining N

The
change of meaning rather an introduction of a new additional meaning
may be illustrated by the word NETWORK
– stations for simultaneous broadcast of the same program.

Once
accepted N may become a basis for further word formation. ZIP
– to zip – zipper –
zippy.

The
lex. System is unadaptive system, developing for many centuries and
reflecting the changing needs, servicing only in special context.
Archaism
& historisms.

Archaism
–
once common but are now replaced by synonyms. Mostly they are poetic:
morn
– arch, morning – new word, hapless – arch, unlucky – modern.

Historism
– when
the causes of the word’s disappearance are extralinguistic, eg. The
thing named is no longer used. They are very numerous as names for
social relations, institutions, objects of material culture of the
past, eg. many types of sailing craft belong to the past: caravels,
galleons.A
great many of
H
denotes various types of weapons in historical novels: blunderbuss
— мушкетер,
breastplate. Many
of them are in Voc in some figurative meaning: shiel
– щит,
sword. – меч.

7.
Homonymy.
Different
in meaning, but identical in sound or spelling form

Sources:

1.
The result of split of polysemy capital
– столица,
заглавная
буква

Homonymy
differs from polysemy because there is no semantic bond (связь)
between homonyms; it has been lost & doesn’t exist.

2.
as the result of leveling of grammar in flections, when different
parts of speech become identical in their forms. Care
(in OE) — caru(n), care (OE) – carian (v)

3.
By conversion
slim – to slim, water – to water

4.
With the help of the same suffix fro the same stem. Reader
– the person who reads/a book for reading.

5.
Accidentally. Native words can coincide in their form beran
– to bear, bera (animal) – to bear

6.
Shortening of different words. Cab
(cabriolet, cabbage, cabin)

Homonyms can be of 3 kinds:

1.
Homonyms proper (the sound & the spelling are identical)
bat – bat
— flying
animal (летучая
мышь)
— cricket bat (бита,
back — part of body, away from the front, go to back

2.
Homophones (the same sound form but different spelling)
flower – flour, sole – soul, rain – reign, bye-by-buy

3.
Homographs (the same spelling)
tear [iə] – tear [εə, lead [i:] – lead [e]

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:

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. 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.

8.
Synonymy.

A
synonym – a word of similar or identical meaning to one or more
words in the same language. All languages contain synonyms but in
English they exist in superabundance. There no two absolutely
identical words because connotations, ways of usage, frequency of an
occurrence are different. Senses of synonyms are identical in respect
of central semantic trades (denotational meaning) but differ in
respect of minor semantic trades (connotational). In each group of S
there’s a word with the most general meaning, with can substitute
any word of the group. TO
LOOK AT — to glance – to stare

Classification:

Weather the different in
denotational/ connotational component

1.
Ideographic
synonyms. They
bear the same idea but not identical in their referential content,
different shades of meaning or degree. BEAUTIFUL
– fine, handsome – pretty,
to
ascent – to mount – to climb.

2.
Stylistic
synonyms. Different
in emotive and stylistic sphere.

Eat
— Devour (degradation),
Face
— muzzle
(морда)

Synonymic condensation is
typical of the English language.

It
refers to situations when writers or speakers bring together several
words with one & the same meaning to add more conviction, to
description more vivid. Ex.:
Lord & master, First & foremost, Safe & secure,
Stress & strain, by force & violence

Among
synonyms there’s a special group of words –
euphemism used
to substitute some unpleasant or offensive words. Drunk
– marry

According to interchangability
context S are classified

3.
Total
synonyms
An extremely rare occurrence. Ulman: “a luxury that language
can hardly afford.” M. Breal spoke about a law of distribution in
the language (words should be synonyms, were synonyms in the past
usually acquire different meanings and are no longer
interchangeable). Ex.: fatherland
— motherland

4.
Contextual
synonyms.
Context can emphasize some certain semantic trades & suppress
other semantic trades; words with different meaning can become
synonyms in a certain context. Ex.: tasteless
– dull, Active – curious, Curious – responsive

Synonyms can reflect social
conventions.

Ex.:

5.
Dialectical
synonyms.
Ex.:
lift – elevator, Queue – line, autumn – fall

6.
Relative
some
authors classify group like:
like – love – adore, famous- celebrated – eminentthey
denote different degree of the same notion or different shades of
meanings and can be substituted only in some context.

Antonymy.
Words
belonging to the same part of speech identical in speech expressing
contrary or contradictory notion.

Комиссаров
В.Н.
classify them into absolute/
root (late/early)they
have different roots
,
derivational (to
please-to
displease) the
same root but different affixes. In most cases “-“ prefixes from
antonyms an,
dis, non.
Sometimes they are formed by suffixes full
& less.
But they do not always substitute each other selfless
– selfish, successful – unsuccessful .the
same with “-“ prefixes
to appoint – to disappoint.

The
difference is not only in structure but in semantic. The DA
express
contradictory notions, one of then excludes the other active
– inactive. The
AA
express
contrary notion: ugly
–
plain – good-looking – pretty –
beautiful

Antonimy
is
distinguished from complementarily
by being based on different logical relationshipd for pairs of
antonyms like
good – bad, big – small.
He
is good (not bad). He is not good (doesn’t imply he is bad).
The negation (отрицание)
of one term doesn’t implies the assertion of the other.

John
Lines suggests proper
hot-warm
– tapped – cold &
complementary antonyms only
2 words negative and assertion not
male — female.

There’s
also one type of semantic opposition conversives
words
denote one reference as viewed from different points of view that of
the subject & that of the object.
Bye
– sell, give — receive

Conversness
is
minor image relations of functions husband
– wife, pupil – teacher, above – below, before — after

9.
Phraseology.
Phrasiological units/ idioms – motivated word group. They are
reproduced as readymade units. Express a singe notion, used in
sentence as one part of it.

Idiomaticy
—
PU when the meaning of the whole
is
not deducible from the sum of the meanings of the parts. Stability
of PU implies that it exist as a readymade linguistic unit, which
doesn’t allow of any variability of its lexical component of gr.
Structure.

In
ling. literature the term
Phraseology is
used for the expressions where the meaning of one element is depended
on the other. Vinogradov: “irrespective of structure and properties
of the units”. Smernitsky: “it denotes only such set expressions
which do not possess expressiveness or emotional coloring”. Arnold:
“it says that only denotes such set expressions that are
imaginative, expressive and emotional”. Ammosova call them fixed
context units – we
can’t substitute an element without changing the meaning of the
whole. Ahmanova insists on the semantic intearity of such phrases:
“prevailing over the structural separates of their element”.
Kuning lays stress on the structural separatness of the elements in
the PU on the change of meaning in the whole as compared with its
elements taken separately with its elements and on a certain minimum
stability.

Phraseology
(Webster’s
dictionary) mode of expression peculiarities of diction. That is
choice and arrangement of words and phrases characteristic of some
author.there are difficult terms. Idioms word equivalents & these
difficult units or terminology reflects certain differences in the
main criteria used to distinguish.

The
features: 1.
lack of semantic motivation 2. Lexical & grammatical stability

Semantic
classification:2
criteria: 1). The degree of semantic isolation 2). The degree of
disinformation

1.
Opaque in meaning (трудный
для
понимания)
the meaning of the individual words can’t be summed together to
produce the meaning of the whole.to
kick the bucket = to die It
contains no clue to the idiomatic meaning of this expression.The
degree of semantic isolation is the highest.

The 3 typesof PU:

1.
Phraseological fusions. The degree of motivation is very low. one
component preserves its direct meaning Ex.:
to pass the buck = to pass responsibility – свалить
ответственность,

2.
Phraseological unities. Clearly motivated. Transparent both
components in their direct meaning but the combination acquires
figurative sense to
see the light = to understand, old salt — морской
волк

3.
Phraseological combinations. There is a component used in its
direct meaning. There are lots of idioms (proverbs, saying). To
be good at smth.:
Curiosity
killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back
Idioms institutionalized formulas of politeness:How
do you do?Good-bye (God be with you) How about a drink?

Structural classification
of PU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syntactical classification
of PU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In I.V.Arnold’s
classification there are also sentence equivalents, proverbs, sayings
and quatations, e.g. «The sky is the limit», «What makes him
tick», » I am easy». Proverbs are usually metaphorical, e.g. «Too
many cooks spoil the broth», while sayings are as a rule
non-metaphorical, e.g. «Where there is a will there is a way».

The following are the ways by which new words are formed in English. 

Derivation 

Derivation is a process
of forming new words according to fairly regular pattern on the basis of
pre-existing words.

If we analyse
the process of derivation in more detail we will notice that a step in a
derivation is usually not on process but 3 semantinal process namely-

a)     
morphological process

b)     
semantic process

c)     
syntactic process

Major word
formation processes in English are:-

1) Affixation-

One of the
commonest methods of word making in English is called Affixation. Affixation is
accomplished by means of a large number of small bits of the English language
which are not usually given in listings in the dictionary. These small bits are
called affix and the process is known as affixation. A few examples are the
elements un, mis, pre, less ish etc which appear in words like unhappy,
misrepresent, pre-paid, boyish, terrorism etc.

In the preceding
groups of words it should be obvious that some affixes had to be added to the
beginning of a word. For example- “un”. These are called prefixes and the
process is known as prefixation. The other affix forms are added to the end of
the word, for example, “ism” and these are called suffixes. The process
involved here is called suffixation. All English words formed by the
derivational process of affixation used either prefixes or suffixes or both.
Thus “mislead” has a prefix, “disrespectful” has both prefix and suffix and
“likeliness” has two suffixes.   

The English
language has made generous use of prefixes and suffixes to make new words or to
modify or to extend the root idea. But there are some important differences
between prefixes and suffixes. Prefixes are put before a word whereas suffixes
are put in the end of a word. Another important difference between them is that
prefixes mostly have a meaning of their own, though they are not generally used
as separate words, whereas suffixes are used only to modify the root idea of a
word or to convert the word into another part of speech. For example, if we add
a prefix to the word “author” we’ll get “co-author”. Here the root idea is not
modified and moreover the word class is unchanged. But by suffixation we get a
new word authorship. Here we get a new word.

Acronyms

Some new words
are formed from the initial letters of a set of other words. These are called
acronyms. For example-SARS, NASA, NATO, UN. Acronyms can loose their initials
become everyday terms such as LASER, SCUBA (self-continued underwater breathing
asparagus)etc.

Backformation

A very
especialised type of reduction process is known as backformation. Typically a
word of one type (usually a noun) is reduced to form another word of a
different type( usually overt). For example, televise for television, emote
from emotion, enthuse from enthusiasm, edit from editor etc.

Conversion

A change in the
function of a word, as for example when a noun comes to be used as a verb
without any reduction is generally known as conversion. Other lebels for this
very common process are category change and functional shift. A number of nouns
such as paper, butter, bottle etc can via the process of conversation come to
be used as verb as in the following sentences-

He is papering
the bedroom walls

Have you
buttered the toast?

He is tutoring
the students.

Compounding

One of the
commonest ways of making a new word is to join two or more element, each of
which is also used as separate word. This method of forming new word is called composition
or compounding, and the words thus formed are called compounds. For example
brainwash, headache, sleep walking, day dreamer, self control etc.

Words made from the names of places and persons:-

Another prolific
source of word formation in English is the derivation of new words from the
names of places, persons and characters in famous books. For example; the word
sandwitch comes from the name of the Earl of Sandwitch. Cardigan comes from the
Earl of Cardigan. Quicksotic comes from Don Quicksotc. The word solomon as a
substitute for wisdom originates from the Bible.

Portmantaau words:-

This process is
comparatively a new comer in the scenario of word generation. This is of noble
nature in comparison with other forms of word formation. Too different and
independent lexical entries are blended together by subtracting the front
portion of a word and a back portion of another. The word thus formed are
called Portmantaau words; for example; happenstance (happening+circumstance);
workaholic(work+alcoholic);wevzine(web-sight+magazine);
Internet(International+Network) etc.

The
difference between inflection and derivation

Both derivation
and inflection makes word but derivation makes a new word. For example,
respect->respectful; good-> goodness etc. But inflection merely changes
the relation of case, number, gender, person and pens. For example

dog-  dogs-   
dogs

            plural   possessive

look-  looks-  
looks

In English
prefixes are always derivational.