Classification of Synonyms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll go tothe shop and get some bread.

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

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

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

French Borrowing s (to question to finish to mount guidance stomach)

Latin bor rowings (to interrogate to complete to ascend instruction abdomen)

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

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

Synonymic differentiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Билет № 21. (Антонимия. Классификация)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Билет № 22. (Омонимия. Классификация)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Билет № 23. (Семантическая классификация слов).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structurally word-groups may be approached in various ways:

· through the order and arrangement of the component members:

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

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

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

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

· nominal gr. (red flower)

· adjectival (kind to people)

· verbal (to speak well), etc.

· according to their syntactic pattern:

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

· non-predicative

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Билет № 25. (Семантические классы словосочетаний.)

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

· virtual – all possible w.grs.

· non-characteristic (blue rage, black silence)

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structurally word-groups may be approached in various ways.

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

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

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

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

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

T he meani ng of word-groups may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the components.

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

Word-groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. Such word-groups as school grammar and grammar school are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words. It is assumed that the structural pattern of word-group is the carrier of a certain semantic component which does not necessarily depend on the actual lexical meaning of its members. In the example discussed above school grammar the structural meaning of the word- group may be abstracted from the group and described as "quality-substance" meaning. This is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the word-group but not by either the word school or the word grammar. It follows that we have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.

The lexical and structural components of meaning in word-groups are interdependent and inseparable. The inseparability of these two semantic components in word-groups can be illustrated by the semantic analysis of individual word-groups in which the norms of conventional collocability of words seem to be deliberately overstepped. For instance, in the word-group all the sun long we observe a departure from the norm of lexical valency represented by such word-groups as all the day long, all the night long, all the week long, and a few others. The structural pattern of these word-groups in ordinary usage and the word-group all the sun long is identical. The generalised meaning of the pattern may be described as "a unit of time". Replacing day, night, week by another noun the sun we do not find any change in the structural meaning of the pattern. The group all the sun long functions semantically as a unit of time. The noun sun, however, included in the group continues to carry its own lexical meaning (not "a unit of time") which violates the norms of collocability in this word-group. ft follows that the meaning of the word-group is derived from the combined lexical meanings of its constituents and is inseparable from the meaning of the pattern of their arrangement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

· predicative They knew Children believe Weather permitting

· coordinative say or die, come and go

· subordinative a man of property, domesticated animals

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

· nominal stone wall wild life

· adjectival necessary to know kind to people

· verbal work hard go smoothly

· adverbial very fluently, rather sharply very well so quickly

· numerical five of them hundreds of refugees

· pronominal some of them all of us nothing to do

· statival fast asleep, full ajar

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Idioms

· Semi-idioms

· Phraseomatic units

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

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

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

Scientists distinguish also:

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

· Phrases with a descriptive meaning

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

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

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

· Terminological expressions (general ticket, civil war)

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

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

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

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

· idiomatic meaning

· idiophraseomatic meaing

· phraseomatic meaning

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

· the grammatical block

· the phraseological meaning proper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Semanti c approach stresses the importance of idiomaticity, functional - syntactic inseparability, contextual - stability of context combined with idiomaticity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

There are 2 ways of enriching the Voc.:

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

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

· productive or patterned ways of w-formation

· non-petterned ways of w-creation

· borrowing from other languages

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

Highly productive types:

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

· prefixal negative adjectives formed after 2 patterns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Productive w-formation has a specific distribution in rel

⇐ Предыдущая1234

Поделиться:

Воспользуйтесь поиском по сайту: