1. Lexicology as a linguistic discipline; its tasks and objectives.

Relation of
lexicology to other linguistic fields.

Lexicology – a branch of linguistics concerned with the study of the meaning,

structure, origins and uses of words.

The object of Lexicology is a word and word-combinations or word-groups.

The basic task of Lexicology is the study and systematic description of the
vocabulary of some particular language in respect to its origin, development and
current use. In other words, Lexicology is concerned with words and word-
combinations (or word-groups), phraseological units and morphemes which make
up words.

Lexicology is divided into General, Special, within Special Historical and

Descriptive, Comparative and Contrastive types.

1) General Lexicology is part of General Linguistics, it is concerned with the

study of vocabulary irrespective of the specific features of any particular
language.

2) Special Lexicology is the Lexicology of a particular language, i.e. the study

and description of its vocabulary and units, primarily words as the main units of
language. It goes without saying that every special lexicology has its own inner
branches as historical and descriptive lexicology.

Historical (Diachronic) Lexicology is a branch of linguistics discusses the origin

of different words, their change and development, their semantic relations and the
development of their sound form and meaning. (Greek dia-“through” and chronos
– “time”)

Descriptive (Synchronic) Lexicology deals with the vocabulary of a given

language at a given stage of its development. It studies the vocabulary at a
definite stage of its development. The Descriptive Lexicology of the English
language deals with the English word in its morphological and semantic
structures, investigating the interdependence between these two aspects. (Greek
syn-“together, with” and chronos – “time”)

3) Comparative and Contrastive Lexicology aims to study the correlation

between the vocabularies of two or more languages and find out the
correspondences between the vocabulary units of the languages under
comparison. The difference between the terms comparative and contrastive is that
comparative methods give the similarities and differences of vocabulary of related
languages and contrastive aims to investigate the vocabulary of non-related
languages.

Vocabulary studies include such aspects of research as etymology, semasiology

and onomasiology

 Etymology - a branch of Lexicology, which deals with the history of words,

their origins, and how their forms and meanings have changed over time,
including different processes of assimilation and adaptation of foreign words.
Etymology deals with the origin of a word by pointing out the root or primitive
upon which it is based.

 Semasiology (deals with the meaning of the word); Semasiology is closely

connected with another branch of linguistics, onomasiology, which also
studies meaning but from, as it were, the direction opposite to semasiology.
While semasiology proceeds from the word to its meaning, onomasiology
proceeds from the object of naming to its name, i.e. it studies the ways in
which things are named in a language.

 Word formation (studies all possible ways of the formation of new words in
English);

 Phraseology (studies the set-expressions, phraseological units);

 Lexicography (studies compiling dictionaries).

2. What is a word? Definition of word. The notion of lexeme.

The notion of ‘word’, as is obvious, is central to the study of lexicology and one
cannot get on with other issues in lexicology without answering the question
‘What exactly do we mean by the term ‘word’? So far we have proceeded from
the assumption that the word is the basic unit of the language system, the
largest on morphological and the smallest on syntactic plane of linguistic
analyses. However, to demonstrate that this interpretation, if clear, helpful and
satisfactory in many linguistic studies, falls short of explaining many other uses of
the term, and, therefore, is by no means definitive, let us consider the entry on
word in the second, 1989 edition of OED, which displays its senses under the
three headings (which were also used in 1927 by C.T.Onions):

(1) Speech, utterance, verbal expression, divided into eleven sense groups:
speech, talk, utterance; a speech, an utterance; speech as distinct from
writing; verbal expression as contrasted with thought; contention,
altercation; a report, news, rumor; an order, request; a promise,
undertaking; a declaration, assertion; an utterance in the form of a phrase
or sentence, a saying or proverb; a divine communication, scripture, and
Christ.

(2) An element of speech, a single twelfth sense initially defined as: ‘a

combination of vocal sounds, or one such sound, used in a language to
express an idea (e.g. to denote a thing, attribute, or relation), and
constituting a minimal element of speech having a meaning as such’. This
technical definition is followed by the seven sense groups: a name, title,
idea, term; engraved or printed marks on surfaces; in contrast with the
thing or idea signified; the right word for the right thing; a telegraphic
message; a mathematical sequence; a string of bits in a computer.

(3) Phrases, a heterogeneous collection of such usages as take a person at his

word, in so many words, word of honor, and by word of mouth.

These three headings go to show that identifying what word is does not seem to
be a simple task, since one inevitably comes up against a number of difficulties
due to the fact that the term ‘word’ is a polysemous one. Besides, popular usages
– a number of senses that ‘word’ has come to traditionally be used in – have also
had a role to play in developing its many designations. The technical definition is
listed twelfth in OED, since the dictionary was compiled on historical principles.
Even though more contemporary dictionaries – which tend to place the technical
sense first – may offer somewhat simplified and more straightforward definitions
(for example, the 1985 edition of American Heritage Dictionary defines word as
‘a sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or
printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a
single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes’), the term may still
invoke several senses at once, which may sometimes be confusing. In order to
overcome this problem, a range of other, more technical terms have been
suggested. These are lexeme, lexical unit, and lexical item, which are devoid of
other, non-technical meanings and, therefore, make sense delimitation easier. Of
these, lexeme is probably the most commonly used. It is used to denote a unit in
the lexicon (lexis, vocabulary) of a language. Its form is governed by sound
and writing or print, its content – by meaning and use. Thus, deforestation is
the realization in speech and writing of a single English lexeme, while the word
anger represents two lexemes (one for a noun, the other for a verb). So each
lexeme corresponds to one separate entry in the dictionary. On the other hand,
words like fine and date stand for many lexemes. It would be difficult to
unequivocally determine the exact number of lexemes that each of them
represents, since there is no uniform approach in dictionaries as to what
constitutes a separate meaning in a word. Fine, for example, represents at least
four lexemes: an adjective (“acceptable”; “healthy”; “of very high standard”;
“small”), a noun (penalty in the form of money), an adverb (“in a satisfactory
manner”) and a verb (“make s/one pay money as a punishment”). By the same
token, date accounts for several distinct lexemes as a noun and a verb.

Some lexicologists, however, deem it practical to make a distinction, as Howard

Jackson does, between orthographic, phonological words and lexemes.
According to Jackson, orthographic words are words in writing, sequences of
letters bounded by spaces. Phonological words are words in speech, i.e.
sequences of sounds. And finally, lexemes, within this classification, refer to
words in the vocabulary of a language [Jackson, 2002; ]. While this may be a
sensible distinction to make, we will use the term ‘lexeme’ to refer to all words
regardless of where they are used.

How dictionaries treat lexemes – as separate entries under their own

headwords or as part of other entries – varies significantly. This depends on
many things: the size and type of a dictionary, a policy dictionary-compilers
adopt toward headwords and other factors. The general rule of thumb for an
average-sized dictionary is that different parts of speech within one word
(anger as a verb and anger as a noun) will count as separate headwords. So
will lexemes that do not go back to the same etymological source (the noun
date as “a particular day of the month or year”, “appointment” and as “a type of
fruit”. But there is little consensus even with regard to these basic principles,
which entries for date, for example, readily demonstrate: in Longman Dictionary
of Contemporary English, date as a kind of fruit is not listed under a separate
headword, whereas in the Free Online Dictionary, it counts as a separate entry.

The term lemma is sometimes alternatively used in lieu of the word headword.
Besides, one sometimes encounters the term citation form instead. Lemmas, just
like headwords, represent a set of related forms of a lexeme in a dictionary.
They stand for all the inflected forms of a word. Conventionally, the lemma is
chosen to be the least marked, i.e. basic form among all the forms of a lexeme.
For example, the lemma ‘give’ represents forms ‘give’, ‘gave’, ‘given’, and
‘giving’. The difference, therefore, between a lemma and a lexeme is that the
latter designates the entire set of all the forms that have the same meaning
(give, gave, given, giving), while lemma refers to the particular form that is
chosen by convention to represent the lexeme (give).

Linguistic unit is any unit that possesses external (sound) form and semantic
content and it is not created in the process of speech but used as something
already existing. It is one of the natural units into which linguistic messages can
be analyzed.
In linguistic literature we come across the view that the units of language are the
phoneme, the morpheme and the construction, while the units of speech are the
syllable, the word and the sentence.

discourse - extended verbal expression in speech or writing

word - a unit of language

syllable - a unit of spoken language larger than a phoneme

phoneme - A phoneme is the basic unit of phonology. It is the smallest unit of

sound that may cause a change of meaning within a language, but that doesn’t
have meaning by itself. 

lexeme - a minimal unit (as a word or stem) in the lexicon of a language

morpheme minimal meaningful language unit

formative - minimal language unit that has a syntactic (or morphological) function

name - a language unit by which a person or thing is known

string - a linear sequence of symbols (characters or words or phrases)

collocation - a grouping of words in a sentence

speech sound, phone, sound - (phonetics) an individual sound unit of speech

without concern as to whether or not it is a phoneme of some language

sign - a fundamental linguistic unit linking a signifier to that which is signified

3. Lexical/semanic fields. Theory of lexical fields.

Some isolated attempts have been made to study the structure of some semantic
or lexical fields, such as the hierarchy of military ranks, color terms, numerals,
and kinship terms. Most of these attempts are directly or indirectly connected with
what has come to be known as the theory of ‘semantic fields’ or ‘lexical field
theory’. An example of a simple semantic field would be the conceptual domain
of cooking, which is divided up into the lexemes bake, boil, fry, sauté, stew, roast,
etc. Some other terms that are alternatively used for ‘lexical field’ or ‘lexical set’
are a ‘semantic field or ‘semantic domain’. Linguist Adrienne Lehrer has defined
semantic field specifically as "a set of lexemes which cover a certain
conceptual domain and which bear certain specifiable relations to one
another" [Lehrer, p.283]. David Crystal defines a semantic or lexical field as a
‘named area of meaning in which lexemes interrelate and define each other
in specific ways’ [1995, p.157]. To put it in simpler terms, a lexical field is a
group of words or lexemes whose members are related by meaning,
reference, or use. Sometimes a lexical field is defined in terms of the following
conditions that it should meet:

 the lexemes are of the same word class;

 their meanings have something in common;

 they are interrelated by precisely definable meaning relations.

One of the first examples of a lexical field was that of kinship terms, which
comprises the lexemes: father, mother, son, daughter, cousin, nephew, uncle, aunt,
grandfather, grandmother, in-laws, etc. Field theory was first put forward by
German and Swiss scholars in the 1920s and 1930s. According to some
researchers, however, its origin can be traced back to at least the middle of the
19th century. A basic premise of semantic field theory is that to understand
lexical meaning it is necessary to look at sets of semantically related words,
not simply at each word in isolation [Lehrer, p.283]

According to Lexical Field Theory, the vocabulary of a language is essentially

a dynamic and well-integrated system of lexemes structured by relationships
of meaning. The system is changing continuously as a result of the impact of
various forces such as the disappearance of previously existing lexemes, or the
broadening or narrowing of the meaning of other lexemes. In other words,
lexemes may lose one meaning and instead develop another.

The system is mainly characterized by the relationships of synonymy and

antonymy, hierarchical, general-particular and part-whole relationships, and
also relationships of sequences and cycles. Here are some examples that
illustrate each of these relations:

SYNONYMY

Error, mistake, blooper, slip-up, miscalculation, slip, gaff, oversight etc.

ANTONYMY

(Contrary to expectations, he gave a very poor performance)

Poor – remarkable, outstanding, marvelous, excellent, dazzling

HIERARCHICAL

Military ranks – lieutenant, colonel, general, major, sergeant, captain

GENERAL-PARTICULAR

Stationery – paper, pen, pencil, eraser, ink, ruler

PART-WHOLE

Plane – fuselage, landing-gear, wing, rudder, cockpit, engine, flaps, ailerons

SEQUENCES AND CYCLES

Spring, summer, autumn/fall, winter

As might be expected, the lexicologist who attempts to assign all the words in
English to lexical fields is bound to run up against a number of difficulties.
According to Crystal, these difficulties are of three kinds:

(1) some lexemes tend to belong to fields that are vague or difficult to
define. E.g., it’s not clear where the lexemes noise or difficult should be
assigned.

(2) Some may be quite legitimately assigned to more than one field
(orange, e.g.)
(3) A challenge to define appropriately and accurately a lexical field in
relation to other fields, on the one hand, and, on the other, in relation to its
constituent lexemes. To use Crystal’s example, is it more appropriate to say that
tractor belongs to the field of ‘agricultural vehicles’, ‘land vehicles’, or just
‘vehicles’. Should the lexeme flavor be a member of the lexical field of “taste”
or should the word taste be a lexeme of the field “flavor”? Or maybe both of them
should be treated in a broader semantic field, under an umbrella term
“sensations”. There is no easy answer to that.

4. Word classes. Differences between open and closed classes.

The notion of word class may also be used to account for the structure of the
vocabulary as a whole. Following an approach that goes back to the ancient
grammars of Latin and Greek, traditional grammars of English distinguish eight
parts of speech: noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition,
conjunction, and interjection. More recently, however, grammarians have
elaborated them into further classes. Here is how Quirk et al. distinguishes
between different classes:

(a) open classes: noun, adjective, verb, adverb;

(b) closed classes: preposition, pronoun, determiner, conjunction,

auxiliary verb;

(c) lesser categories: numeral, interjection;

(d) a small number of words of unique function: the particle not and the
infinitive marker to.

[Quirk et al. 1985 : 67]

Most generally, the first class comprises full forms such as green, figure, forgive,
badly etc., which is to say, forms of major parts of speech (nouns, verbs,
adjectives and adverbs), the other class consists of ‘empty’ forms like the, of,
to, and the like, which do not automatically suggest any identifiable meaning.
These tend to be defined in terms of their syntactic function, rather than
semantically.

Other terms used to designate the category of closed-class words are

‘grammatical’ or ‘empty word-forms’, ‘form words’, ‘function words’ or even
‘ structural words’. All these terms reflect the view that the main function of this
category of lexical units is syntactical, rather than nominative, affective etc.
Open-class lexemes, in their turn, can also be referred to as ‘lexical words’ or
‘content words’.

It must be pointed out, however, that there does not seem to be a clear-cut
distinction between the two classes. It might make better sense to speak of a
continuum or cline ranging from content words like conscience, dry, fine to
words generally devoid of semantic content such as, for example, it or that in
a sentence like ‘It is apparent that this is not the case’. A sentence suggested
by M.A.K.Halliday to illustrate the same point is It always snows on top of the
mountain, where he places items like snows and mountain at one end of the
spectrum, it and the at the other, while words like always and top lie
somewhere along the middle of the cline [Halliday, p.3].

Besides, although many ‘empty’ words may be classed as grammatical

words, they are clearly not devoid (не позбавлені) of semantic content. The
sentence The house is on the river has quite a different meaning when ‘on’ is
replaced by ‘by’ or ‘beyond’. Just as drastic a change in meaning is manifest
in the sentences: The bridge has been closed for repairs, The bridge is under
repair and The bridge is beyond repair. By the same token, the coordinators
‘and’, ‘or’ or ‘but’ are not mutually interchangeable as they are not
synonymous. Thus there is no exact point where the lexicologist stops and the
grammarian takes over; each one can readily enter into the territory of the
other [Halliday, Lexicology and Corpus L…, p.3]

It is generally assumed that all English words without exception must belong to
one or more word classes. It is, by and large, hardly possible to tell which word
class a word belongs to by simply looking at it, though inflections may often
provide a clue (-able, for example). But in the overwhelming majority of cases,
one needs to study a word’s behavior in sentences, since in English words may
often belong to more than one class: Leaving for the station 20 minutes before the
departure of the train was cutting it fine (adverb) and The grain was ground into
very fine flour (adjective). The usual rule of thumb here is that all words that
function in the same way are members of the same word class.

5. Word families.

Another useful way of taxonomizing words is by grouping them into ‘families’

on the basis of their morphology. Word families are form-based paradigms, as
opposed to lexical or semantic fields, which are meaning-based paradigms. A
word makes up a word family together with all its forms – both inflected and
derived. A family, therefore, consists of a base form, its possible inflectional
forms, and the lexemes derived from it by means of suffixation and
prefixation. For example:

think (verb)

thinks, thought, thinking ( inflections )

thinkable, thinker, rethink, unthinkable, thought-out, thoughtful, thoughtless

(derivations)

or:

word (noun)

words, word’s, words’ (inflections)

word (verb), wording, wordy, wordiness, reword, wordless (derivations)

Each of these families is bonded by a common root word, although the resultant
connections of meaning are also an important bonding feature.
Even though a similarity of form is often linked with a similarity of meaning,
a link of form can exist without any link of meaning. For example, understand
clearly consists of under + stand, but there is nothing in its meaning that would
suggest 'standing' in its conventional sense.

On the other hand, there are semantically related words whose structure
does not immediately suggest similarity. For example, words death, dead and
die are represented in three seemingly unrelated lexical entries, since the
morphological processes that were historically responsible for these derivational
variants are no longer productive. Nevertheless, we perceive these words as
related, because our concepts of the words are related and, as a result, we put
them in the same category – a category of underivable d-words to do with
“death”.

To better understand the idea and to further develop the notion of word families,
Bauer and Nation proposed a set of levels into which families can be divided
(Bauer, Nation 1993). The levels are established on a number of criteria to do
with the frequency, productivity, regularity and predictability of the affixes that
are employed. These criteria are applied to English affixes so that the inflexional
affixes and the most useful derivational affixes are arranged into a graded set of
seven levels. The criteria are ordered according to their importance. The first
concerns frequency [], specifically the number of words in which an affix
occurs. For example, -er occurs far more frequently than –ist to form ‘agent’
nouns from verbs (employer, violinist). The second criterion is productivity, i.e.
the extent to which an affix continues to be used to form new words: -ly is still
highly productive in deriving adverbs from adjectives (shrewdly, cannily,
astutely), while as an adjective-forming suffix it is far less productive (cowardly,
saintly, gentlemanly, godly). The third criterion concerns the predictability of the
meaning of the affix. By way of example, -ness is only used to form nouns from
adjectives to convey the idea of ‘quality of’ (orderliness, craziness), whereas –ist
has a whole range of meanings (obstructionist noun vs. alarmist adjective). The
remaining criteria are to do with regularity of spelling and pronunciation (of
the base and affix) and that of the function of an affix in terms of the word
class of the base to which it attaches (Jackson 2007: 20).

On the basis of these criteria, Bauer and Nation establish seven levels of family
relationship. At the first level, each word form is seen as a different word.
Therefore, there is no family. At the next level, they group words that have a
common base but variant inflectional suffixes (noun: country, countries,
country’s, countries’; verb: try, tries, tried, trying; adj.: big, bigger, biggest). The
third level groups words formed by means of ‘the most frequent and regular
derivational affixes’: -able, -er, -ish, -less, -ly, -ness, -th, -y, non-, un-. At level
four, they bring together forms with ‘frequent, orthographically regular
affixes’: -al, -ation, -ess, -ful, -ism, -ist, -ity, -ize, -ment, -ous, in-. Level five has
words derived with the help of some fifty ‘regular but infrequent affixes’, e.g.
- let, -anti, sub- etc. At level six come forms derived by ‘frequent but irregular
affixes’: - ee, - ive, re- etc. And finally, at level seven there are words formed
by means of classical (Latin and Greek) roots and affixes: philology, astronaut
and the common prefixes: ab-, ad-, dis-, ex- etc. [Bauer]

The practical benefits of an analysis in terms of word families, especially one

described above, can be found in language teaching and in lexicography. The set
of levels established by Bauer and Nation has value in guiding teaching and
learning by helping standardize vocabulary load and vocabulary size research. It is
also useful in guiding dictionary making. For lexicographers, such an analysis
provides a more secure basis for the treatment of affixes and derived forms in
dictionaries.

6. Synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of vocabulary. Folk

(popular) etymology.

There are two principal approaches in linguistic science to the study of

language material: synchronic and diachronic. The synchronic approach to
the study of vocabulary is concerned with the lexicon of a language as it
exists at any one time, whereas the diachronic approach deals with the
changes and the development of vocabulary in the course of time. It analyzes
the changes language forms have undergone over a period of time. So if
vocabulary is studied diachronically, it is considered from the perspective of
the processes through which it evolved. It must be noted that language study in
the 19th century was overwhelmingly diachronic, but in the 20th century,
emphasis shifted to synchronic analysis. Ferdinand de Saussure was the first to
postulate the priority of synchrony. He believed that no knowledge of the
historical development of a language is necessary to examine its present
system. He was also the first to employ the terms ‘synchronic’ and
‘diachronic’. The Swiss linguist used the analogy of a tree-trunk to describe
the difference in the two approaches: a vertical cut was diachronic, while a
horizontal cut synchronic.

If we were doing a synchronic study of slang, and more specifically, a study of

items, for example, that are common at all times, denoting attitudes of
approval and meaning ‘s/th superior, excellent’, we would be looking at words
like cool, awesome, rad, and analyzing them in present-day contexts, primarily in
speech (like in a sentence, She seems quiet at fist, but she's actually pretty rad
when you get to know her) or the writings of contemporary authors and even in
the current media publications (I'm writing about this only because it's a holiday
and I really wanted to show you guys how totally awesome this James Cameron
movie is). If, instead, we were more intent on a diachronic study of such slang
items, we would be more likely to consider, on the one hand, how these words
came to be, how they were used before, what meanings they developed over
the years, how exactly the processes of replacement of one item by another
happened, what variation (of different vocabulary items) was in evidence at
different points in the past etc.

What is important to remember, however, is that the two approaches do not rule
each other out, so they should not be viewed in opposition to each other. In
fact, they are interconnected взаємопов’язані and interrelated because every
linguistic structure and system is in a state of constant flux so that the
synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic
change.

7. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations.

Paradigmatic relations exist between units of the language system outside the
strings where they co-occur. They are based on the criteria of selection and
distribution of linguistic elements. Paradigmatic relations determining the
vocabulary system are based on the interdependence of words within the
vocabulary: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy. (substitutional
relationships with other units) vertical relations

Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear links between the units in a

segmental sequence. Syntagmatic relations are horizontal since they are based on
the linear character of speech.

Like paradigmatic relations, syntagmatic relations can operate at all linguistic

levels. In the phrase the boy, which consists of a determiner plus noun, we can put
a variety of items between the and boy, but we are not permitted to reverse them.

Syntagmatic are based on the linear character of speech i.e. on the influence of
context. Context is defined as the minimum stretch of speech necessary and
sufficient to determine which of the possible meanings of a word is used., e.g.
blue eyes − to feel blue; вiльна країна − вiльне мiсце.

Syntagmatic relationships are studied by means of contextual, valency,

distributional, transformational and other types of analysis. Paradygmatic
relationships carry our attention to: (a) the interdependence of elements within
words, (b) the interdependence of words within the vocabulary.

8. Continuum vs. discreteness as principles in the study of vocabulary and

language in general.

In the present work, we proceed from an assumption that much in language is a

matter of degree and that there are hardly any clear-cut categories, whether we
deal with word meaning, morphological patterns, idiomatic expressions, semantic
relations between words etc. By this, we mean that few categories within the
study of the lexicon can be described as discrete, that is having clear and distinct
boundaries separating them from other categories. The idea of discreteness
implies that the categories are fundamentally different and that there is a
sharp dividing line between them. The non-discrete alternative, on the other
hand, or what can be called continuous, suggests that categories grade into one
another. In other words, they gradually merge into each other and there is no
clear demarcation line between them but, instead, the boundary is blurred and
fuzzy. The nominal equivalents of the adjectival forms discrete and continuous are
discreteness and continuum. The idea of a dichotomy is a prime example of the
discreteness principle.

There are quite a few phenomena in lexicology as well as linguistics that have
been traditionally treated by linguists as rigid dichotomies: competence and
performance, grammar vs. lexicon, morphology vs. syntax, homonymy vs.
polysemy, connotation vs. denotation, literal vs. figurative, derivational vs.
inflexional affixes, idiomatic vs. non-idiomatic etc. A good illustration is the
traditional distinction between lexical and grammatical classes of words, or
content words vs. function words, which we discussed a little earlier. However,
one does not have to go far to see that things are far from being as
straightforward as they seem at first sight and intermediate examples are easily
found. A closer scrutiny of the major word classes reveals that they all have
central and peripheral members and that there is a great deal of overlap
between them. For example, many grammatical morphemes are meaningful and
some are arguably as elaborate semantically as many content words. It would be
hard to claim that modals, for example, must as in He must have given up on the
idea, have less semantic content than such lexical morphemes as have, thing or
stuff, as in What did he talk about? – Stuff. By the same token, one would further
argue that grammatical morphemes contribute semantically to the constructions
they appear in: ask for vs. ask about, try to complain vs. try complaining, etc.
Finally, certain classes of function words, just like content words, readily accept
new members. Quantifiers, prepositions, postpositions, conjunctions, and
subordinators are commonly innovated. A comparable semantic ‘load’ of many
function words proves yet again that the boundaries between these two
groups are blurry.

9. What are meaning relations? Relation of reference vs. sense relation.

Meaning relations is based on the idea of paradigmatically substitutable classes,

i.e. The way in which lexemes can substitute for another in the same context.

A reference relation is a semantic relation between a referencer and its referent

that a communicating agent can use to communicate the presence of the referent
to dereferencing agent.

Sense relation is any relation between lexical units within the semantic system of
a language. This means that there has to be a relation in meaning between lexical
units of a language.

10. Change in meaning. Factors (language-internal and language-external)

that contribute to shifts in meaning.

New names can come from many sources: entirely new words are coined, words
are borrowed from other languages, new words come about as a result of word-
building processes (derivation, compounding, abbreviation, conversion etc.). But
language has another, very productive way of designating new objects at its
disposal, which is applying existing words to new objects. The resultant
semantic changes are sometimes classified according to whether they are
driven by factors within the language itself, or by factors working from
outside of language. These two types of factors are traditionally referred to as
linguistic or language-internal and extra-linguistic or language-external. The
latter, which are also known as historical, are related to societal changes, i.e.
changes in culture, ideology, technology, general knowledge and also people’s
attitudes. These, in turn, also fall into several types and may be due to the
following:

(1) Need to give names to new objects as they come into being. Life brings
about new objects, artifacts and concepts that need to be named. It makes sense to
use existing words to designate new phenomena on the basis of some similarity or
connection between them.

A more recent example of a similar utilization of an old lexical item can be

exemplified by the lexeme Trojan horse or simply Trojan. Assimilated by OE
from Latin, the word Troian was initially used in reference to a king of Phrygia,
the mythical founder of Troy. Interestingly enough, the expression Trojan horse,
which originated from Virgil’s epic poem Aeneid (1st c. BC), would not come
into use until the late 16th century. When, with ever growing computer use in the
1980s, computer users were confronted with a problem of malicious computer
software, the word Trojan started to be applied to a harmful computer program
that is disguised as something innocuous or useful and, by virtue of this fact,
invites the user to run it, concealing a harmful payload.

(2) A further important illustration of socially-motivated semantic change

can be what has been described by Steven Pinker as euphemism treadmill. A
euphemism is a word or an expression used in place of an offensive or
unpleasant equivalent to mitigate or soften the negative effect on the listener.
The words idiot, imbecile, and moron were once neutral terms for a
developmentally delayed adult. Since negative connotations, according to this
principle, tend to crowd out neutral ones, the three words, with time, developed
strong negative overtones. In response, the phrase mentally retarded was
introduced to replace them. With time, however, mentally retarded, too,
developed pejorative connotations and started to be considered vulgar, since it
was commonly employed as an insult with reference to a person, thing, or idea.
As a result, new terms like mentally challenged, with an intellectual disability or
with special needs and having learning difficulties have replaced retarded.

lame → crippled → handicapped → disabled → physically challenged →

differently abled

Likewise, Negro became black, which, in its turn, led to African American;
Oriental became Asian; Hispanic became Latino.

(3) Negative connotations of the word in one of its meanings leading to a

change in another as well as in the word’s overall semantics. Let us consider a
brief history of the word gay, which is often cited as a classic illustration of such a
situation (Hollmann 2009: 531). Until a number of decades ago, it was commonly
used to mean ‘cheerful’. Nowadays, however, the word ordinarily conjures up a
homosexual person, while the older meaning has virtually disappeared. On the
other hand, there are many cases where older meanings happily coexist with
newer ones. While the word screen, for example, nowadays primarily means ‘TV
or computer screen’, its older meaning of a large wooden panel (used to
separate one part of the room from another) is very much alive and still widely
used.

On the other hand, words develop new meanings for inherently linguistic
reasons. The main language-internal factor is other changes in the lexicon,
and in the meanings of lexical items. Probably the best illustration of language-
internal factors at work is (1) the phenomenon of synonymy. Often word
meanings and entire words can be ousted from language following a ‘clash’
between synonymic words. Under such scenarios, a redistribution of meanings
occurs as a result of synonymous words coming into contact with one another.
For example, the verb starve, which goes back to Old English (steorfan) and now
means ‘to suffer or even die from hunger’, used to simply mean ‘to die, to
perish’. But when the verb die came from the Scandinavian, there was an overlap
between their semantic structures. For a time, these words were used
interchangeably. Eventually, however, starve lost its meaning of ‘die’ and
gradually changed it to its current, much narrowed, meaning.

(2) In a discussion about factors influencing semantic change, one cannot ignore
processes related to what is known as lexical field or word-field theory. This
theory, as was discussed in Chapter 2, was introduced in 1931 by the German
linguist Jost Trier. According to Trier, words acquire their meanings through
their relationships to other words within the same word-field. What this
essentially means is that an extension of the sense of one word leads to a
narrowing of the meaning of one or several neighboring words. If we were to
consider a part of such a network – such as the set of all domestic fowl, for
example – it would become obvious that many processes involving semantic
change are found to be working together: the reference of one word widens while
narrowing another. The word chicken, which dates back to the OE period, started
‘life’ in the meaning of ‘young fowl’. It narrowed in reference in ME, when its
use was restricted to the meaning of ‘young chicken’. Since then, though, its
meaning has generalized drastically to include the meaning of hen, which by then
had been the common term for ‘the adult female chicken’. Now, even though hen
has retained its tightly circumscribed semantic niche (‘the adult female of the
domestic fowl’ and ‘the female of any bird’), it has narrowed in reference and
frequency of use and it is currently the word chicken that is the most common
term for the Ukrainian lexeme ‘курка’ and for ‘the meat of this bird eaten as
food’. This example proves that processes of semantic change that tend to spread
across entire networks of words constitute an important linguistic factor affecting
shifts in the meaning of words.

(3) Furthermore, semantic change is often generated in words with potential

for confusion. Scholars believe that languages generally do not allow unclear
usages to become prevalent, but instead tend to ‘fix up’ any true
impediments to comprehension that language can accidentally create
(McWhorter 2000: 76). John McWhorter offers the word wont as an illustration
of this. Although registered by most dictionaries, this lexical item meaning
“having a tendency to do s/th” (as in She was wont to say things like that) is no
longer a vital part of the spoken language. The reason for it, according to John
McWhorter, is that it is virtually impossible to utter it without creating a
confusion with want, especially because its meaning even encroaches a little on
the meaning of want. Since the language can’t have both of these words when
their forms and meanings are so closely related, there is a strong possibility that
wont may fall by the wayside, especially considering that want is obviously the
more indispensable of the two [Ibid.].

In our discussion of social and linguistic factors, it is important to remember that

the distinction between the two is somewhat arbitrary довільна and there is
hardly any watertight distinction as, by and large, they tend to operate hand in
hand.

In addition to it, there are all kinds of cognitive factors that engender semantic
change. What needs to be understood is that historical semantic change is not
random but is cognitively guided. For instance, it makes sense for the name of
an individual with a salient characteristic to become a common noun
applying to other people with that characteristic. Thus from Ebenezer Scrooge
of Ch.Dickens’s Christmas Carol comes the common noun scrooge for ‘a miserly
person; a mean-spirited skinflint’ («скнара, скупий») as in ‘His scrooge of a wife
won't let him buy new golf clubs.’ Slang makes use of the same type of logic, as
when Barbie, a popular type of doll in the shape of an attractive young woman,
used as a child's toy, becomes the noun for ‘a painstakingly fashionably dressed
and groomed young woman’ (Is this Barbie of a friend of yours coming too?).

A good illustration of the fact how words currently develop new meanings
would be regular updates of the biggest dictionaries, like OED, for example.
Because word meanings drift, new ones come to life, others disappear, the
dictionary updates its entries on a regular basis. The words ‘hell’ and ‘heaven’
are a good example of ongoing change. Heaven, as opposed to hell, is expansive
and open, its phrases largely positive (e.g. a marriage made in heaven, to move
heaven and earth), though a flutter of frustration can intervene (heaven knows, for
heaven's sake). Heaven occurs in Beowulf, and so has coexisted with all the
changes that have taken place within English over the years. Much the opposite
can be said of its counterpart hell (which, however, shares with heaven its
longevity in the language). Hell is a ‘bleak’ word, its phrases and compounds are
negatively colored (all hell breaks loose, hell on earth, hell-mouth, hell-bent, hell-
ship). Up till now, hell had one hundred and forty-two sections, while heaven had
forty-six. Now, however, according to the most recent updates of OED, heaven
has had eleven new senses added, while hell has had six more.

11. Transference based on similarity (metaphor). Traditional vs. cognitive

view of “dead” metaphors.

This type of transference is better known under the term ‘metaphor’. The word
comes from Greek μεταφορά – metaphora – meaning "a transfer", from
μεταφέρω – metaphero ("to carry over, to transfer") and describes a situation
where two seemingly unrelated objects are indirectly compared. More generally, a
metaphor is the kind of transference that describes a first subject as being or equal
to a second subject in some way. This device is traditionally common in literature,
especially poetry.

Linguists, however, have long noticed that metaphor is widespread not only in
literary language, but in ordinary, nonliterary uses of language as well. George
Lakoff and Mark Johnson in the seminal work Metaphors We Live By argued that
metaphors are primarily a conceptual construction, and, indeed, are central to the
development of thought. Within a cognitive framework, metaphor is a primary
way in which we accommodate and assimilate new experience about the world.
Hence it is at the source of our capacity to learn and at the center of our creative
thought. The idea behind a conceptual metaphor is that metaphors are not only
expressed in words, but are also habitual modes of thinking underlying many
related metaphoric expressions.

Metaphor, unlike metonymy, crosses spheres of use – so-called content domains

– and names one thing by something in another domain. This calls forth a
likeness or analogy between things that are fundamentally different (about
computer memory, virus etc.).

Metaphorical mappings – correspondences between objects from two otherwise

unrelated domains.

I.A.Richards – incidentally, long before Lakoff and Johnson – in The Philosophy

of Rhetoric (1936) analyzed metaphor in terms of tenor and vehicle. The tenor,
according to him, is the subject to which attributes are ascribed, whereas the
vehicle is the subject from which the attributes are borrowed. Tenor and vehicle
are sometimes referred to as ground and figure by other scholars.

Over time or with frequent use, the metaphoric origin of words and expressions is
sometimes forgotten. Metaphors that brought about such words and phrases are
traditionally called dead metaphors. English words that contain the base -ject
started as metaphoric uses of the Latin word for ‘throw’: conjecture – ‘throw
together, dejection – ‘throw down’, project – ‘throw forth’, reject – ‘throw back’.
Even expressions whose metaphoric origins are not buried in foreign etymologies
often escape notice – for example, “the eye of a needle,” “the heart of the matter,”
“the tongue of a shoe,” “the leg of a chair”, “the hand of the clock”, to name just a
few. The interesting thing about “dead metaphors” is that cognitive linguistics
views them somewhat differently from the more traditional – structuralist –
approaches to lexical meaning.

12. Transference based on contiguity (metonymy). Types of metonymic

relation.

This kind of transference is also known as linguistic metonymy. Metonymy, like

metaphor involves some sort of connection between concepts, but in this case
there is no similarity between them. They are, however, closely linked in some
other way, for example, because one is part of, or contains, the other. In other
words, it is the use of one thing to stand for another that has something in
common with it. Metonymy vividly demonstrates that language often refers
indirectly. Both kinds of transference – metonymy and metaphor – involve the
substitution of one term for another. But while in metaphor, this substitution is
based on similarity, in the case of metonymy, the substitution is based on
association or contiguity. To ensure a clearer understanding of the fact that
metonymy works by virtue of association between two concepts and metaphor by
the similarity between them, we can use the notion of domains. Metaphor makes a
comparison between two concepts belonging to two different domains
(computers, for example, have nothing to do with biological viruses; the two
notions, therefore, belong to two unrelated domains, or spheres), while metonymy
compares two concepts from the same domain (in the metonymic use of Vatican,
the name of the place stands for the Pope and the Catholic Church in general, but
they are clearly related as Vatican is the location of the Pope’s residence).

 If we ask someone if they watched Larry King or Hanna Bezulyk last night,
we actually want to know whether they watched the TV show that the
famous talk show host was in. This type of metonymy is sometimes called
pars pro toto (“part for whole”).
 The reverse, so-called totum pro parte (“whole for part”) is also possible.
When we say that the United States waged war against Iraq in the wake of
the 9/11 attacks, we do not mean that the entire country, i.e. every U.S.
citizen became involved in the military invasion of Iraq. What we imply –
and what everybody understands – is that only a small fraction of the
American population, indeed, a small part of the U.S. army was sent to
fight in Iraq.

These two types of metonymy – pars pro toto and totum pro parte – are
sometimes subsumed by the term synecdoche, which is considered by many
linguists a subclass of metonymy.
Let us consider some of the relations that may hold between a concept and its
metonymic “counterpart”:

 the kind of metonymy in which reference to a whole organization is used to

stand for the people who actually make a decision or perform an action.
 the kind in which reference to a tool is used to stand for the user of the tool.
 the kind of conventional metonymy in which reference to the place where
an event occurred is used to stand for the event itself.
 the type in which reference to the producer of a product is used to stand for
the product itself.
 a metonymic relation in which reference to a characteristic or important
part is used to stand for the corresponding whole and vice versa. As was
mentioned earlier, this type of metonymy is often referred to as
synecdoche, which in turn can be broken down into pars pro toto and totum
pro parte. E.g. We don't hire longhairs (i.e. people with long hair, esp.
hippies); Do you like my new wheels?
 the one in which reference to a thing perceived is used to stand for the
perceptions it gives rise to
 the kind of metonymy in which reference to the controller of a controlled
entity, such as an organization or tool, is used to stand for the controlled
entity.
 a metonymic relation in which reference to the place at which an institution
is located is used to stand for the institution itself.

13. Amelioration vs. pejoration of meaning. Specialization vs. generalization

of meaning. Grammaticalization.

Sometimes the connotation associated with a term becomes more favorable or less
favorable, opposing processes being called amelioration or melioration and
pejoration. Terms elevation and degradation or degeneration of meaning are
interchangeably used to designate the same processes.
(A)melioration is a process of semantic change in which there is an improvement
or “upward’ shift in the meaning of a word.

Word Old Meaning

enthusiasm "abuse"
guts ("courage") "entrails"
pastor "shepherd"
pluck ("spirit") as in
"act of tugging"
He has a lot of pluck
queen "woman"
The opposite of amelioration is pejoration, in which the connotations evoked by a
word become less favorable. This process of semantic change involves
depreciation or a ‘downward’ shift in the meaning of a word. Latin villanus
became Middle English vilain/vilein (a serf with some rights of independence),
then Modern English villain (a scoundrel, criminal). Gaudy in latin “joy”, in
Middle English “an ornamental rosary bead”, in Modern – “tasteless or
ostentatious ornamentation”. Amusing, awful and artificial used to mean
"pleasing, awe-inspiring and artful".

Generalization – a process of semantic change that widens the meaning of a

word, phrase or lexeme. Sometimes alternative terms, broadening or widening,
are used. What the example with dog (used to mean one specific breed) illustrates
is that generalization leads to the use of a word in a broader realm of meaning
than it originally possessed, often referring to all items in a class, rather than one
specific item. It has to be pointed out that generalization is an integral process of
human cognition. Daughter was first extended from that of "one's female child" to
"a female descendant", pigeon meant a young bird, especially a young dove, but
has come to refer to the whole family Columbidae, place derives from Latin
platea, "broad street", but its meaning grew broader than the street, to include "a
particular city" etc.

A loss of force or vividness often takes place in conjunction with generalization.

Intensifiers and hyperbolic expressions are particularly susceptible to such loss, a
process sometimes called emptying. A word can be emptied of its specific
meaning and retain only a positive or negative value. Common examples in
Standard English are intensifiers such as very, awfully, terribly, terrifically,
fearfully and others.

Specialization of meaning one understands a process of semantic change in which

the range of referents decreases and narrowing occurs in the meaning of a word.
This is why this process has been dubbed as narrowing. For instance, in Middle
English, deer meant a four-legged beast but the early restriction to one kind of
animal has long since eclipsed the earlier meaning. Fowl is now usually restricted
to the farmyard hen, but it has retained its original meaning of ‘bird’. Bread used
to mean any piece of food. Categories like generalization and specialization are
not always sharply distinguishable.

Grammaticalization is the process by which lexical items or constructions with

specific lexical items develop grammatical functions, leading to the
reinterpretation of the lexical items as possessing grammatical functions. When
that happens, we see an extension of a form to functions and contexts not
previously associated with that form. Let us examine what in present-day English
is known as be going to + Inf. and will + Inf. future tense constructions. As is
evident, originally both these verbs would not be combined with infinitives. Over
time, however, it became possible to combine them with infinitives and that is
when the grammatical meaning within these constructions crowded out the lexical
one.

In other words, when lexical expressions develop into grammatical constructions,

the older meanings may but need not continue to exist. If they gradually die out,
there are often some remnants that persist for quite some time. The American
linguist P.Hopper calls this the principle of persistence, one of several principles,
or typical characteristics, of grammaticalization. Semantic bleaching – the loss of
semantic content. More specifically, semantic bleaching refers to the loss of all
(or most) lexical content of a lexical item while only its grammatical content is
retained. The unidirectionality principle presupposes that the development of
lexical elements into grammatical ones, or less grammatical into more
grammatical, is the preferred direction of linguistic change and that a lexical item
is much more likely to move towards a grammatical function than for a
grammatical item to move towards a lexical meaning.

It is worthy of note that grammaticalization always involves a loss of categories:

adverbs, auxiliaries, prepositions and other minor categories always derive from
the prime categories NOUN and VERB, sometimes ADJECTIVE, never the
reverse.

14. Synonymy. Strict (absolute) and loose synonymy. Criteria for absolute
synonyms. Reasons for extensive synonymy in English. Major differences
between items in synonymic sets (areas of distinction between synonyms).

Synonyms are defined as words of the same category of parts of speech conveying
the same concept but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic
characteristics;

Synonyms are words with the same denotation, but differing in connotations;

Synonyms are words that are identical in “central semantic traits” and differ in
only “peripheral traits”;

Synonyms are defined as words that are interchangeable at least in some contexts
without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning.

A detailed and quite all-encompassing definition was suggested by I.Arnold.

Synonyms can be any part of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepositions
etc.) as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech.

In the strict (absolute) sense, synonyms are lexical items that would have to be
interchangeable in all their possible contexts of use: a speaker or writer would
have a free choice of either one or the other word in any given context. Whichever
word was picked would have no effect on the meaning, style or connotation of
what was being said or written. However, linguists argue that such strict
synonymy hardly exists, or that, if it does, it is observable in restricted situations.
Historically if two words have been in danger of becoming strict synonyms, one
of them has either changed its meaning in some way or fallen out of use (sky and
heaven; ghost and spirit).

What people normally mean by synonymy is, by and large, varying degrees of
‘loose’ synonymy, whereby there is not only a significant overlap in meaning
between two words, but also differences. That is to say that in some contexts at
least they cannot substitute for each other. Synonyms may be closer or more
distant in meaning, though it is not clear how this might be measured. Nor is it
clear whether there is a limit at which the concept of synonymy becomes
meaningless.

In view of all of the above, distinctions that are now commonly made are between
strict or absolute and loose or near-synonyms, which demonstrate a loose relation
of sameness. Many of the expressions listed as synonymous in ordinary or spe-
cialized dictionaries are what may be called near-synonyms: expressions that are
more or less similar, but not identical, in meaning.

Two (or more) expressions are absolutely synonymous if, according to Lyons,
they satisfy the following three conditions:

1. all their meanings are identical;

2. they are synonymous in all contexts;

3. they are semantically equivalent (i.e., their meaning or meanings are

identical) on all dimensions of meaning, descriptive and non-descriptive
[Lyons, 61].

Frequency, distribution and connotation – these three criteria can, for the most
part, be profitably used to distinguish items in synonymic sets. From the very
start, however, it is crucial to point out that there is a considerable overlap
between them. So although each can sometimes account for differences between
synonyms on their own, more typically, they tend to correlate with each other.
Therefore, they should only be used as very general points of reference, since
words tend to differ on many dimensions at once.
For instance, differences in the frequency of use characterize most items within
synonymic sets. Very few words in English – as in many other languages, for that
matter – appear with the same frequency as their synonyms.

By distribution we mean either dialectal or functional distribution. If we take an

approach to English from the perspective of many varieties that make it up
globally, it becomes apparent that different members of synonymic sets come
from different varieties. The varieties or dialects in question may be one of the
national standards, or they may be a regional dialect within a country or area.
Apart from dialectal territorial or regional distribution, it is also sensible to talk
about sociolectal distribution. A second general way in which synonyms may be
distinguishable – we will call it functional distribution – relates to the different
functional styles and registers that members of a synonymic set may be part of.
By “register” we mean “a speech variety used by a particular group of people,
usually sharing the same occupation or the same interests (e.g. baseball fans etc.).
We typically distinguish between unmarked member(s) of a synonymic set – the
more neutral, general or mainstream items – and marked member(s), i.e. coming
from a more circumscribed area of usage.

And finally, a third way in which synonym pairs may be distinguished is where
connotations differ. Two words may largely share a denotation, in referring to a
particular entity, but they may have divergent associative or emotive meanings.

Reasons for Extensive Synonymy in English. English is an example of a

language that is particularly replete with synonymous pairs. Historical
circumstances are believed to be responsible for this, and specifically the fact that
other languages continued to exist alongside English for centuries at different
periods of its evolution. The extraordinary synonym richness of English,
therefore, arose from the blending of words from different language sources in its
vocabulary. This is also the reason why English borrowed from other languages
literally wholesale, especially from French and Latin.

15. Antonymy. Types of oppositeness.

As opposed to synonymy, antonymy, which conveys the idea of oppositeness, is
probably a less pervasive meaning relation in the vocabulary of English. It is a
semantic relation, which means that oppositeness may be expressed by
structurally different words and words belonging to different word classes.
Antonyms or opposites.

It must be noted that unlike synonyms, antonyms do not usually differ in style,
emotional coloring or distribution. It is worthy of note that not all words have an
opposite. Some words are non-opposable.

Antonymy is most evident in the adjective word class, where a good many words
occur in antonymous pairs. Apart from morphologically unrelated antonyms
English can also derive antonyms by means of prefixes and suffixes. Negative
prefixes such as dis-, un-, non-, a-, in-, -ir, or im-. Similarly, the suffixes - ful and
-less may derive pairs of antonyms.

Antonymy is necessarily related to the concept of binary opposition, since

binarity is quite intrinsic to the notion of contrast. By “binary”, as was mentioned
earlier, we mean “twofold; characterized by or consisting of two parts or
components”.

In contrast to synonymy, antonymy covers a number of different types of

oppositeness of meaning. Typically three types are identified:

(1) gradable antonyms;

beautiful ugly
expensive cheap
fast slow
hot cold
increase decrease
long short
love hate
rich poor
wide narrow
 sleep insomnia
humility vanity
These pairs are called gradable antonyms because they do not represent an
either/or relation; the relation that holds between them is rather a matter of degree.
The words can be construed as terms at the opposite ends of the spectrum or
continuum. The more/less relation is evident in a number of ways: the terms allow
comparison and contrast.

(2) contradictory or complementary antonyms;

asleep awake
dead alive
on off
permit forbid
remember forget
shut open
true false
win lose
Contradictory or complementary antonyms that these pairs represent constitute an
either/or relation of oppositeness. A person can either remember or forget, an
action can either be forbidden or allowed, a statement can be either true or false
and an animate being can be described as either dead or alive, but not as some
grade of these or as being more one than the other. The assertion of one implies
the denial of the other member of the pair.

(3) converse antonyms.

above below
before after
behind in front of
buy sell
give receive
husband wife
parent child
 teacher student
employer employee
speak listen

These are normally referred to as converse pairs of antonyms – sometimes called

relational pairs – since for each pair of antonyms, one expresses the converse
meaning of the other.

One thing to keep in mind about antonymic relations is that some words can have
more than one antonym, depending on the situation. Contextual antonyms are,
therefore, words that are opposite in meaning only under some specific
conditions.

16. Sense relations: Hyponymy and meronymy.

Hyponymic and meronymic relations constitute sense relations that relate words
hierarchically. In the case of tree and oak, the relation is a ‘kind of' relation: an
oak is a kind of tree. This is the relation of hyponymy. In the case of landing gear
and aircraft, the relation is a ‘part of' relation: a landing gear is part of a plane.
This is the relation of meronymy.

Hyponymy - the 'kind of' relation. The term at the top of the hierarchy (plant) has
the most general meaning, and it can be used to refer to all the objects denoted by
terms below it. It is a ‘superordinate’ term. It is often called a hyperonym. Those
immediately below it, the directly ‘subordinate’ terms are its hyponyms. So tree
is a hyponym of plant.

Meronymy - the 'part of' relation. The ‘part of' relation can similarly be
represented by a hierarchy of superordinate and subordinate (meronym) terms.
Such part/whole relations exist between many words in the vocabulary. A knife
consists of a blade and a handle.

17. Lexical semantics. The concept and definition of meaning. Word meaning
(Word as a linguistic sign).
Lexical semantics is the study of word meaning. Descriptively speaking, the main
topics studied within lexical semantics involve either the internal semantic
structure of words, or the semantic relations that occur within the vocabulary. The
central problem of lexical semantics is the problem of meaning of individual
words and that of groups of words, as well as its ontology and basic properties.
The scope of the word’s meaning as well as the change and development of
meaning is taken in a broad sense in lexical semantics.

Meaningless but acceptable and unacceptable but meaningful.

The term meaning has been notoriously difficult to define as one of the most
elusive concepts in linguistics. This is because when we attempt to define
meaning, we need to cover a whole range of linguistic and extralinguistic factors
that come into play at the same time. This is part of the reason why scholars are
divided as to what constitutes meaning and the ways in which it should be
described. Ogden and Richards, who maintained that ‘meaning is a relation in the
mind between facts and events on the one hand and the symbols and words you
use to refer to them, on the other’, Ullmann has gone further by using the term
meaning to designate ‘a reciprocal relation between name and sense, which
enables them to call up one another’ (Ullmann, 1964).
On the other hand, M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Firth argue that meaning is a
‘function of the description at all levels’ or a ‘function in context’ respectively.
Another problem that the meaning of a word poses is that different scholars attach
varying significance to the inherent properties of the word, on the one hand, and
contextual/functional/situational meanings, i.e. meanings that words acquire in
various contexts. V.Vinogradov, for instance, contended that ‘the meaning of the
word is about the socially recognized and established contexts of its use more
than about anything else…’. Conversely, other scholars construe meaning as an
indispensable inherent property of the word as the basic unit of language. Neither
of the approaches, however, if applied to the exclusion of the other, can
satisfactorily answer the question of meaning.
Dynamic or functional meaning cannot be interpreted without recourse to
pragmatic analysis, whereby meaning is perceived as something that is performed
rather than something that exists in a static way. In pragmatics, meaning is a result
of interaction between the users of language, which is to say, it is ‘negotiated’
between speaker and hearer. Here is how the opposition between static and
dynamic meanings can sometimes be represented:
STATIC DYNAMIC
Found in dictionaries Observed in actual use
Denotative Connotative
Isolated meaning Meaning deriving from context
Conventionalized Creative
Regulated by authority Negotiated between users
Base-meaning Extended meaning
Predictable Unpredictable
Impersonal / generalized Personal / particular
Semiotics, as a study of signs, sees the word as a linguistic sign. According to
Saussure, the linguistic sign is a two-faceted mental construct. It is seen as an
organic unity between a concept and a sound form. The two sides of the sign are:
 the signifier (the shape" of a word, its phonic component, i.e. the sequence
of letters or phonemes) – «означальне» (словесно реалізована одиниця)
 the signified (the ideational component, the concept or object that appears
in our minds when we hear or read about the signifier) – «означуване»
(одиниця смислу).
(The signified is not to be confused with the referent. The former is a mental
concept, the latter the actual object in the world).

18. Sense relations vs. relations of reference. Difference between denotation

and reference.

Sense relations describe internal meaning relations. By ‘internal’ we mean that

such relations hold between words within the vocabulary. The most obvious sense
relations are those of ‘sameness’ and ‘oppositeness’. These are normally referred
to by terms ‘synonymy’ and ‘antonymy’. For example, talkative has a relation of
synonymy with chatty, nosy, forthcoming, and a relation of antonymy with
lexemes taciturn, reticent, silent, reserved, and unforthcoming. Other sense
relations – hyponymy and meronymy – arrange words of the vocabulary in
hierarchies as they constitute the kind of correspondences that relate words
hierarchically. For example, rodent is in a hierarchical relation with animal,
which is a more general term, as is it with rat or rabbit, which are more specific
terms.

Relations of reference – an external meaning relation: it is the relationship

between a word and the entity that it refers to or designates in the physical world,
our mental world or the world of our experience. It must be noted, however, that
this relation holds between a lexeme and an extra-linguistic object on concrete
occasions of use, i.e. reference fully depends on concrete utterances rather than
abstract sentences. It is, therefore, viewed as an utterance-dependent or context-
bound relation.

Lyons, for example, defines the denotation of a lexeme as ‘the relationship that
holds between that lexeme and persons, things, places, properties, processes and
activities external to the language system’. The denotative meaning of a signifier
is intended to communicate the objective semantic content of the represented
thing. So, in the case of a lexical word, say "book", the intention is to do no more
than describe the physical object. Any other meanings or implications will be
connotative meanings. To say what the word ‘job’ denotes is to identify all those
entities in the world that are appropriately called ‘jobs’. What dictionaries give us
as explanations for lexemes are in fact what we call a denotation.

As opposed to denotation, the relationship of reference holds between an

expression and what that expression stands for on particular occasions of its
utterance’. Lyons further notes that reference, unlike denotation, depends on
specific utterances, not on abstract sentences. In addition, reference is not
normally applicable to single word forms and never to single lexemes.
The crucial difference between reference and denotation is that the denotation of
an expression is invariant and utterance-independent (invariant means ‘constant,
not varying, unaffected by a change in the situation, specific context’). Reference,
in contrast, is variable and utterance-dependent. The important thing to remember
is that lexemes as such do not have reference, but may be used as components of
referring expressions in particular contexts of utterance.

19. Conceptual and associative meaning: Denotation vs. connotation. Types

of connotation.

Denotation suggests a certain ‘cognitive, conceptual meaning’ or, simply put,

objective meaning of a word. Denotative meaning refers to the relationship
between a linguistic sign and its referent (or denotatum), whereas connotation is
essentially stylistic and constitutes additional properties of lexemes (colloquial,
baby, biblical, casual, dialectal, formal etc.). Very often, the connotation of a
lexeme amounts to the positive or negative associations it evokes or conjures up.

Connotation is also known as affective meaning, since it refers to the emotive or

associational aspect of a term. Connotation may be personal or common to a
group. Some words have particular negative or particular positive connotation and
they spread it across the phrase or the sentence they occur in.

Connotational meaning in dictionaries is usually identified by means of semantic

labels such as derogatory, pejorative, euphemistic. In a number of cases, however,
the negative and positive aspects of words remain implicit in the denotational part
of the definition, or rather, the denotational definition is formulated in such a way
that the connotational information may be derived from the choice of words in the
definition.

Connotation is the pragmatic communicative value which the word receives

depending on when, where, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what contexts
it may be used. In other words, connotations render the emotional associations
the words suggest.
There are four types of connotation: stylistic (rhetoric), emotional, evaluative and
expressive/intensifying.

Emotional connotations render various feelings or emotions (e.g. mom vs

mommy). Emotionally charged words can cover the whole spectrum of both
positive and negative emotions, from surprise, respect, tenderness and other
positive emotions on the one hand to grief, irony, scorn and hatred on the other.
The emotive charge of words is to a great extent ‘contextually dependent’, as it
greatly depends on the situation, the speaker and the speaker’s attitude towards
the utterance.

Evaluative connotation shows approval/disapproval of the object being discussed

(e.g: group vs gang). With descriptive words a car can be expensive, with
evaluative connotation it can be overpriced; a house can be left by its owners, or it
can be abandoned.

In some contextual setting the word can realize its positive meaning, in the other
one – negative. This is enantiosemy – a case of polysemy in which one sense is in
some respect the opposite of another. Enantiosemy is realized by means of a
specific prosody of the utterance that is the tone, the pitch of the voice, etc.

The connotative component of meaning can be occasional or usual (adherent or

inherent). An inherent connotation can change the basic meaning of words and
that of the words it touches. For example white can suggest purity, innocence.
Sometimes the words can have only adherent (occasional) connotation acquired in
a certain context, metaphorical meaning (bear (a big man who is rough and bad
tempered)).

20. Polysemy. Problems inherent in the concept of polysemy.

Polysemy refers to a situation where the same word has two or more different
meanings. According to Wikipedia, it is the capacity for a sign (e.g. a word,
phrase, etc.) or signs to have multiple meanings. Words belonging to the most
active, vitally important and widely used part of the English vocabulary are
generally polysemantic. In fact, the older and the more common the word is, the
more meanings it has.

A polyseme is a word or phrase with multiple, related meanings. A word is judged

to be polysemous if the senses of the word are related. Since the concept of
relatedness is the touchstone for polysemy, judgments of polysemy are not always
straightforward. Obviously, delving into the words’ etymology is a helpful
method in making judgments about polysemy.

There are several tests for polysemy, but one of them is zeugma (a use of
language in which a word that has more than one meaning is used with one
meaning in one part of a sentence and with a different meaning in another part of
the sentence, usually in order to produce a humorous effect). If one word seems to
exhibit zeugma when applied in different contexts, it is likely that the contexts
bring out different polysemes of the same word. If the two senses of the same
word do not seem to fit, yet seem related, then it is likely that they are
polysemous.

A closer analysis of a relationship between different meanings of the same word

will reveal that they can be in metaphoric relations or relations of metonymy
(metaphoric relations are relations of similarity while metonymic relations are
those of contiguity).

The term metaphor refers to a situation where a word appears to have both a
‘literal’ and ‘figurative’ or ‘transferred’ meaning. For example, we speak of the
hands and face of a clock.

On the other hand, metonymy refers to the use of a single characteristic to

identify a more complex entity and underlies a very common process of human
cognition: it is common for people to take one well-understood or easy-to-
perceive aspect of something and use that aspect to stand either for the thing as a
whole or for some other aspect or part of it.
Despite the seeming simplicity, the concept of polysemy is complex and involves
a certain number of problems. Many of these problems are primarily to do with
how polysemous words are represented in dictionaries.

The challenges that dictionary compilers most often encounter with respect to
polysemy are of three kinds. The first type involves establishing whether they
deal with polysemy or whether it is a case of homonymy. Dictionaries have to
decide whether a particular item is to be handled in terms of polysemy or
homonymy because a polysemous word will be treated as a single entry, while a
homonymous one will have a separate entry for each of the homonyms. The
policy that a dictionary adopts depends on different factors, the size of the
dictionary being one of them.

If lexicographers do establish that they deal with polysemy, another potential

problem is the sequencing, or ordering of the senses that the word has. The
sequencing of the senses is by no means arbitrary and there is usually a very
distinct regularity to it. The kinds of ordering may vary from dictionary to
dictionary, but commonly they include:

(1) Historical or etymological – the older before the newer. (2) Frequency –
the common before the rare. This has been the primary criterion in most
present-day dictionaries. (3) Logico-semantic, the general before the
specialized, the concrete before the abstract, and the literal before the
figurative.

Apart from the approaches listed above, a compiler may order the senses in a way
that makes the defining easier and more concise.

A third challenge for lexicographers is deciding how many ‘meanings’ or ‘senses’

of a word to recognize. The decision depends on whether the lexicographer is,
according to Allen, a ‘lumper’ or a ‘splitter’ (Allen 1999:61). By “lumpers” he
means dictionary compilers who tend to lump meanings together and leave the
user to extract the nuance of meaning that corresponds to a particular context. On
the other hand, “splitters” seek to discriminate between even the minutest senses
and list them separately within an entry.

21. Homonymy. Types of homonyms. Basic distinction between

polysemy and homonymy
It is two or more words identical in sound form and spelling, or in one of these
aspects, but different in meaning, distribution, and (in many cases) in origin.

Since there are several “types” of homonyms (e.g., same spelling but different
pronunciation, same pronunciation but different spelling, same spelling and
same pronunciation), further categorization is needed.
We can say that homonyms represent the big category, from which 3 sub-
categories emerge:
• Homophones: two or more words that share the same pronunciation but have
different meanings. They may or may not be spelled on the same way.
Examples: write and right, desert (to abandon) and desert (a thing deserved)
• Homographs: homonyms that share the same spelling. They may or may not
have the same pronunciation.
Examples: present (a gift) and present (to introduce), row (argument) and row
(propel with oars)
• Heteronyms: those are homonyms that share the same spelling but have
different pronunciations. That is, they are homographs that are not homophones.
Example: desert (to abandon) and desert (arid region)
Classification of homonyms according to their meaning:
● lexical homonyms – words that differ in their lexical meaning but
identical in their grammatical meaning e.g. a seal (тюлень) – a seal
(печать)
Synonyms and antonyms are regarded as the treasure of the language’s
expressive resources. They are created by the vocabulary system with a
particular purpose
Homonyms are of no interest in this respect. They are accidental
 creations, and therefore purposeless. In the process of communication,
they lead sometimes to confusion and misunderstanding.
● grammatical homonyms – different word-forms of one and the same
word are identical e.g. a seal – seals – seal’s – seals’
Reasons for intense development of homonyms in English:

1. monosyllabic character of the language

2. analytic structure of English
3. predominance of free forms in English
4. high-developed polysemy

there are several sources of homonyms:

a) phonetic changes that words undergo in the course of their historical

development. As a result of such changes, two or more words that were
formerly pronounced differently may develop identical sound forms and thus
become homonyms (e.g. night
and knight were not homonyms in Old English as the initial k in the second
word was pronounced, and not dropped as it is in its modern sound form: OE.
knight (cf OE nihi). A more complicated change of form brought together
another pair of homonyms: to knead (OE cnēdan) and to need (OE nēodian);
b) conversion which serves the creating of grammatical homonyms (e.g.
iron →to iron, work→ to work, etc.);
c) shortening is a further type of word-building which increases the number
of homonyms (e.g. fan, n. in the sense of "an enthusiastic admirer of some kind
of sport or of an actor, singer" is a shortening produced from fanatic. Its
homonym is a Latin borrowing fan. n. which denotes an implement for
waving lightly to produce a cool current of air. The noun rep, n. denoting a
kind of fabric has three homonyms made by shortening: repertory → rep, n.,
representative → rep, n., reputation → rep, n.); d)borrowing is another source
of homonyms. A borrowed word may, in the final stage of its phonetic
adaptation, duplicate inform either a native word or another borrowing (e.g.
ritus Lat. → rite n. – write v. – right adj.; pais OFr → piece, n. – pettia OFr →
peace n.);
e) words made by sound-imitation can also form pairs of homonyms with other
words (e.g. bang, n. "a loud, sudden, explosive noise" – bang, n. "a fringe of
hair combed over the forehead"; mew, n. "the sound a cat makes" – mew, n. "a
sea gul" – mew, n. "a pen in which poultry is fattened" – mews "small terraced
houses in Central London").

To recapitulate, this model (which I will refer to as Model A in the following)

claims that polysemy occurs when the same word (or lexeme) has different
readings. The concrete, observable readings relate to the abstract, not directly
observable lexeme in the same way as contextual (and, to put it more precisely,
contextually determined) variants of abstract morphological or phonological
units in actual utterances relate to these abstract units.
Homonymy is then considered to be two or more words that happen to have the
same form.
The other model of polysemy (Model B) concentrates less on relating the
different meanings of words. It rather holds that polysemy can be assumed if a
word behaves as a single linguistic sign, i.e. its syntactic, morphological and
semantic properties remain constant if it is used in different meanings. For
example, one indication that two instances of words belong to different lexemes
is if they are spelled differently. Another one is that a word should only have
one set of morphological properties.
Yet a different method that mostly leads to the same result as this latter one is to
check if two meanings of a word belong to the same semantic field. If not, they
are homonyms. Further semantic tests include checking if the word has the
same set of synonyms and antonyms when used in different meanings.
Distribution tests that are
related to pronominalization and zeugma, still widely used today, also appeared
in the earlier literature.
Polysemy is the ability of words to have more than one meaning.
22. Jargon and slang. Euphemisms and taboo. The notion of
“euphemism treadmill”.
Slang is normally defined as informal nonstandard vocabulary that is typically
composed of picturesque, metaphoric short-lived coinages and figures of speech
that are used to signal irreverence, group solidarity, humorous and playful
disposition. Jonathon Lighter, the compiler of the Random House Historical
Dictionary of American Slang (1994-2004), defines slang as ‘informal,
nonstandard and non-technical vocabulary composed chiefly of novel-sounding
synonyms for standard words and phrases’ (Lighter 1994: XI).

The most salient characteristics of slang are generally believed to be the

following:
● Slang is considered to be alternative vocabulary, i.e. slang items usually
refer to objects, people, phenomena etc. in the real world that already
have designations in neutral vocabulary;
● Slang primarily involves vocabulary; syntax, or sentence structure, on the
other hand, is not important in defining slang;
● Connotation is far more important in defining slang items than denotation,
● Slang is prone to over-lexicalization of some spheres of activity. What
this essentially means is that slang is particularly “hospitable” to certain
spheres of life, but not others. For instance, drinking and alcohol, sex,
bodily functions, social relations, violence and crime are just some of the
areas that are most often ‘targeted’ by slang users. By way of illustration,
people taking drugs have been variously called (depending on the type of
drug they use) junkies, druggies, dope heads, dopers, druggies, pill
poppers, pot heads, dope heads, coke heads, smack heads, meth heads,
tweakers, crackpots, crack heads, space cadets, burnouts, stoners, loner
stoners, skanky skanks, to name just a few. Spheres of activity such as
 foreign policy, banking, law, research and the like, on the other hand, do
not generate so much (if any) slang vocabulary.
● The primary function of slang is to establish group relations and
identity; to separate one group of people from another; to differentiate the
in-group from the out-group; to share the insider-knowledge with the
listeners and to show the speaker’s attitude; .
● Above we talked about euphemism, which is intended to soften the
crudeness suggested by the referent. In slang, one frequently encounters
the opposite phenomenon, called dysphemism, where a relatively neutral
word is replaced with a harsher, more offensive equivalent, e.g. calling a
cemetery a boneyard, a doctor a quack, an intellectual an egghead or a
brainiac, and referring to “electrocution” as frying (a prisoner).
 ● Slang, as language that is primarily spoken, is less conservative than
standard language, which, by definition, is used in writing. The transitory
aspect of slang, which was discussed above, results in a slang term
developing polysemy and being used in different meanings at the same
time. This is particularly true of short and clipped lexemes. For example,
the word pro, which has two major meanings: a) someone who is skilled
at s/th, very often sports, as in That guy is a real pro when it comes to
baseball and b) short for prostitute. But the lexeme has now developed a
broader meaning, that of “impressive; amazing; cool”: That videogame is
so pro I want to buy it.
As to jargon, it is the term that most commonly overlaps with slang. The term,
however, should be taken to mean specifically “the technical terms peculiar to
specific occupations and professions… Standard English that is unfamiliar
beyond the limits of those specialized fields for which it provides the
recognized standard vocabulary” (Lighter 1994: xvi). Any technical term that
designates something only for the people who are involved with it is jargon, not
slang. Jargon sounds meaningless to people outside its normal context of use.
The main difference between the two, according to Jonathon Lighter, is that
a jargonism indicates a referent, while slang “characterizes and often makes
light of what it is referred to” (Lighter 1994: xvi). Examples of technical
language that is separate from slang is medical jargon such as PET or CAT
scans, agonal referring to a major negative change in a patient’s condition,
diastolic (pressure during the relaxing of the heart) etc. While different
technical vocabularies do contain a fair share of slang words, like gomer for
doctors and bridge snake for construction workers, their specific technical
vocabulary is not slang.

A euphemism (from Greek, meaning “use of good words”) is a word or

expression that is supposed to ‘put a better face’ on something people find
uncomfortable. Using a euphemism means substituting a mild, inoffensive, or
comforting lexeme for one that is negative, taboo, offensive, or too direct.
Euphemisms have been around since there has been taboo in society.
Euphemisms can be used in a wide range of situations and for a number of
reasons,

e.g. to soften the impact of a harsh truth by using words and expressions that are
less graphic or precise in the social context; to be vague, indirect, evasive; to
sidestep the truth; to sound humorous, light-hearted or tongue-in-cheek. Some
spheres of life give rise to more euphemisms than others: death, physical and
mental disability, bodily functions, sexual intercourse, racism, sexism etc. This
has to do with the fact that discussing these subjects explicitly is often
embarrassing, unpleasant or inappropriate in a number of social contexts. For
instance, the concepts “die” and “dead”, as well as other death-related terms,
have generated a great number of euphemisms, e.g. passed
away, departed, demised, ceased to be, expired, no more, resting in peace,
gone, bereft of life, crossed the River Styx, wandering the Elysian Fields, no
longer with us, perished, in repose, gone to meet their maker and many others.

With time, however, many euphemisms evolve into taboo words themselves.
An explanation for this is that, over a period of time, euphemisms themselves
develop the negative connotations that they were intended to avoid.
by Steven Pinker the “euphemism treadmill” (The process by which
euphemisms fall into disuse and are replaced by new ones, as the old ones
become socially unacceptable over time.)

23. Multiword lexemes. Classifications of idiomatic expressions.

Phrasal verbs and their types. Idioms. Motivation of idioms.

Explanation of idioms from a cognitive perspective.

lexemes are units of lexical meaning which exist regardless of any inflectional
endings they may have or the number of words they may contain
A multiword (or composite) lexeme is a lexeme made up of more than
one orthographic word, such as a phrasal verb (e.g., speak up; pull through),
an open compound (fire engine; couch potato), or an idiom (throw in the towel;
give up the ghost). According to another similar attempt – one by Jackson –
the entire body of phrasal lexemes can be divided into several – fairly arbitrary –
groups:

(a) A structure that consists of a noun + preposition + noun, e.g. rite of passage,
bone of contention, man about town, meals on wheels, leave of absence, age of
consent, etc. go
(b) A phrasal structure that is made up of a noun in the possessive followed by
another noun, e.g. lady’s man, collector’s item, hell’s half acre, fool’s paradise,
baker’s dozen, nobody’s fool, athlete’s foot, etc.
(c) A phrasal structure that consists of two words of a similar type (noun, verb,
adjective etc.) joined by the conjunction and. Such structures are typically
called binomials. Here are a few examples of such phrasal lexemes: spick and
span, nip and tuck, bells and whistles, bricks and mortar, wine and dine, (the)
straight and narrow, backwards and forwards, footloose and fancy-free, gloom
and doom, name and shame, grin and bear it, hustle and bustle, wide-eyed and
bushy-tailed, fire and brimstone etc. It may be reasonable also to assign to this
group similarly structured lexemes joined by the conjunction or: sink or swim,
make or break, like it or lump it, sooner or later, shape up or ship out. Apart
from binomials, this group also includes trinomials, structures that consist of
three words of the same type, e.g. any Tom, Dick or Harry; right, left and
center; hook, line and sinker, etc.
(d) A phrasal lexeme that consists of a verb + adverb (sometimes called a
‘particle’) to form what is known as a ‘phrasal verb’: look up, pass out, do up,
get in, make off, pin down, waste away, hammer out, ratchet up etc.
(e) Finally, phrasal lexemes that are typically metaphorical or figurative in
meaning. They are what most lexicologists refer to as idioms. Idioms contain a
range of structures from a phrase up to a whole sentence, e.g. a skeleton in the
cupboard, get a kick out of s/th, come to a pretty pass, fall by the wayside, spill
the beans, etc. These structures are believed to possess two essential
characteristics: their meaning is more than the meaning of the sum of their parts
and usually figurative; and they have a relatively fixed structure. The idiom
pick s/b’s brain(s) has the figurative meaning of “to ask s/b who has a lot of
knowledge and expertise about s/th for information and advice about it”, and
there is no possibility of substituting or adding anything to its structure. In fact,
the only substitution possibilities are appropriate inflections for the verb pick
and an appropriate possessive pronoun or noun in the place of somebody’s.
Predictably, idioms show a diversity of form and meaning.

classification of idiomatic expressions proposed by Cowie, according to which

collocations are divided into two major categories. These two groups –
restricted and open collocations – represent differing levels of opacity or
transparency.

Restricted collocations. In such combinations, sometimes referred to as ‘semi-

idioms’, one word (i.e. in the case of two-word expressions) has a figurative
sense not found outside that limited context. The other element appears in a
familiar, literal sense: a foregone conclusion, a blind alley, jog s/b’s memory,
checkered career etc. Some members of this group allow a degree of lexical
variation (apart from checkered career, we can talk about checkered past or
checkered history), and in this respect restricted collocations resemble the next
group.

Open collocations. These word combinations are most sharply and easily
distinguished from idioms in the strict sense. They can also be referred to as
‘loose’ or ‘free’ collocations. These terms suggest that elements in such
combinations are freely recombinable, as, for example, in set / give / follow an
example or a good / vivid / telling/ notable/ prime example. It must be noted that
in open collocations, each element is used in a common literal sense.

Also, there are:

(1) Pure idioms. (are fixed word combinations that have been established
through continual use over time. They are non-compositional in meaning, and
do not permit substitution of words by similar words.) This type of non-
motivated phrasal lexemes – idioms in the strict sense of the word – is limited to
the type illustrated by kick the bucket, blow the gaff or trip the light fantastic
(meaning “to dance”). According to Cowie, pure idioms form the end-point of a
process by which word-combinations first establish themselves through constant
re-use, then undergo figurative extension and finally ‘petrify’.
(2) Figurative idioms. These expressions have a figurative (non-
compositional) overall meaning and also keep a current literal meaning. A vivid
example of this category is the idiom close ranks. Literally, it is used with
reference to soldiers, who, if they close ranks, stand closer together. On the
other hand, the figurative reading of this idiom yields the meaning of “joining
together to protect each other, especially because your group, organization etc.
is being criticized”. Earlier on in the chapter, we have discussed word-
combinations bells and whistles and give s/b a leg up. These expressions are
idiomatic in the sense that variation within such units is seldom found. For
example, one can’t replace up in the expression give s/b a leg up with down.
This is not to suggest that variation is not possible at all: the expression a
skeleton in the cupboard can be alternatively used alongside a skeleton in the
closet.

By “multiword verbs”, most people tend to understand what has come to be

known as phrasal verbs. On the other hand, the group of multiword verbs
comprises not one, but rather several types of verb structures. Following many
Western researchers, we will make a distinction between phrasal verbs,
prepositional verbs and phrasal-prepositional verbs. The criteria used to
demarcate these three types are: transitivity (a property of verbs that determines
whether they can take direct objects: stand vs. throw→ a ball) and the position
of the direct object, on the one hand, and the number of particles that the main
verb can take, on the other.
• Prepositional verbs are all transitive, and as such, are always followed by an
object: cater for/to (all tastes), account for (differences), bear on (the national
policies) etc. What sets this group of multiword verbs apart from phrasal verbs,
for example, is that the object never goes between the verb and the particle:
cater all tastes for/to(?) would be ungrammatical.
• Phrasal verbs can be both transitive (drop the kids off and pick them up from
school) and intransitive (bear up: I wonder how he is bearing up after what has
happened; go down: How did your speech go down?). Transitive phrasal verbs,
as opposed to the previous group – prepositional verbs – are characterized by
the fact that the object may take two alternative positions: either following the
particle (There’s little that bears out this idea) – or going in between the verb
and the particle (to bear it out). It must be borne in mind that the object
expressed by a personal pronoun is constrained with regard to its position as it
can only occupy the middle spot between the verb and the particle: bring her up,
pull it off, put you out, but not bring up her (?).
• Phrasal-prepositional verbs occupy a middle ground between the two
previous subgroups. Their most distinctive feature is that they have two
particles (get away with murder, catch up on the news, fall down on one’s job,
be in on the plan). Besides, like prepositional and some phrasal verbs, phrasal-
prepositional verbs are transitive.
types of phrasal verbs:

● Intransitive phrasal verbs have no direct object. (A direct object is

“acted upon” by the verb). Examples of intransitive phrasal verbs:
I woke up at 10:30 AM.

You can come over to my house after

school. He’s going back to Russia next
month

● Transitive phrasal verbs have a direct object. Examples of transitive

phrasal verbs:
You need to fill out this form to register for the course. (fill out =
complete) I’m going to cut down on fast food this year. (cut down on =
reduce)

Check out that website – it’s really great! (check out = look at, go to)

● Transitive phrasal verbs can be separable or inseparable. If a phrasal

verb is separable, it means you can separate the two words and put the
direct object in the middle. If it is inseparable, then you can’t do this.
Separable Phrasal Verb Example: TURN OFF
Please turn off the TV. / Please turn the TV off.
Inseparable Phrasal Verb Example: LOOK
AFTER I’ll look after your dog while you’re on
vacation.

I’ll look your dog after while you’re on vacation – INCORRECT

idioms consist of two or more words and their overall meanings are not
predictable from the meanings of the components. According to the traditional
view of idioms, idiomatic meaning is essentially arbitrary. The cognitive
linguistic view of idioms is similar to traditional thinking in that the meanings
of idioms are not entirely predictable. Where these two approaches diverge,
however, is over the question of motivation. As opposed to the traditional
view, the cognitive approach insists that a large part of an idiom’s meaning is
motivated. Thus the conceptual structure of a motivated lexical unit includes not
only the lexicalized figurative meaning and the relevant traces of the mental
image (i.e. the inner form) but also the conceptual links between them.
The three cognitive mechanisms that are responsible for making the idiomatic
meaning motivated are (1) metaphor, (2) metonymy, and (3) conventional
knowledge (the knowledge of the world).

Cognitive semantics believes that all truths are products of cognition, and there
is no objective truth independent of cognition. The metaphorical view illustrates
the rational development of phenomena, meaning, and language form, explains
the relationship between subjective experience and objective conditions and
highlights the unique cognitive ability of human beings. Traditional semantics
believes that the connection between language form and language meaning is
arbitrary, but cognitive semantics
refutes this view. When people understand the world, they must first establish
meaning, because meaning is the subject’s recognition and comprehension of
the relationship between man and the world and the result of the human body’s
rational cognition. The correspondence between symbols and linguistic meaning
depends on subjective cognition, and the interaction of image, and conceptual
system. Idioms are derived from people’s understanding of the objective world.
Again take “fire” idioms as an example. Some idioms do not contain the word
“fire”. But in the process of cognition, human beings find that these idioms are
more or less related to fire, for example, “to spark off” showing the instant of
ignition, and “to snuff off” meaning the moment when the fire goes out. These
two idioms have nothing to do with fire in form, but are related to “fire” in
cognitive field. Through thinking and unremitting exploration, human beings
pursue hidden connections between things and give meaning to language
through mental activity and experience perception.

24. Collocations and the notion of collocability.

collocation constitutes a syntagmatic relation that a word contracts with other
words occurring in the same sentence or text (is two or more words that often
go together). The Oxford Companion to the English Language calls it a relation
of mutual expectancy or habitual association. The occurrence of one word
predicts a likelihood that another word will occur in the same context, either in
some syntactic construction or across the syntactic boundary. Although
collocation tends to occur most often between words in specified syntactic
relations, e.g. subject + verb (tap + leak), or verb

+ object (watch + television), adjective + noun (inveterate + liar), adverb +

adjective

(wildly + popular), or verb + adverb (travel + widely).

It may be interesting to note that Firth introduced two terms: collocation for
semantic association (which may occur across sentences within a text) and
colligation for syntactic association of lexemes. Nevertheless, the majority of
linguists use the former

– collocation – as a general category to refer to both types of co-occurrence.

It has already been suggested by the present discussion that the mutual
expectancy of two words could be stronger or weaker. The strength of the bond
between the items in a collocation is believed to be determined by (1) the
direction of expectancy, and (2) the number of predictable words.

It seems reasonable to conclude that collocation should be viewed as a matter

of degree and different types can be placed along a scale or continuum, ranging
from weak collocation with only the slightest degree of predictability of co-
occurrence (grave/deep/primary concern) through medium-strength collocations
(hold a conversation, a major operation, expensive tastes, a loud shirt, etc.) to
strong collocation that has a high degree of predictability.
In the section on varieties of phrasal lexemes, we discussed a classification of
idiomatic expressions proposed by Cowie, according to which collocations are
divided
into two major categories. These two groups – restricted and open collocations
– represent differing levels of opacity or transparency. Open-type collocations
are fairly loose as both their elements have considerable freedom to enter into
other combinations. The reason for it is that both of the elements are used in a
common literal sense.
In restricted collocations, on the other hand, one element appears in its literal
sense, whereas the other one is used figuratively. Importantly, its figurative
sense is often unique to this particular combination as it does not extend beyond
its limited context. Restricted collocations are effectively what other
lexicologists have called “fixed collocations”. In a fixed collocation, co-
occurring lexemes are in an almost unchanging syntactic and semantic
relationship with one another. Constituents of fixed collocations do not typically
co-occur with other lexical units freely: only a few, if any, words may be
substituted for the co-occurring lexical units.
A notion denotes the reflection in the mind of real objects and phenomena in
their relations. According to V. V. Levyts’ky, in the process of study of
combinability, it is worthwhile distinguishing between the three notions:
combinability, distribution, and valency.

Distribution is a sum of elements that surround a certain element. In lexical

semantics it is a sum of environments in which a certain word may be used. The
word may occur in different lexical environments in a text. This fact, however,
does not mean that the word enters into specific semantic and syntactic relations
called combinability with each of the elements of the lexical environment.
The notion of ‘valency’ was introduced into Ukrainian linguistics under the
influence of the scientific research conducted by L. Tesniere [4]. The scholar
treated valency as the ability of a word (verb, in particular) to govern other
words in a sentence. These governed words are called ‘actants’. Actants stand for
certain positions in a sentence. Lexical combinability is the ability of a word to
be connected with other words in a text. The fact that certain words can occur in
the text together is not sufficient, since lexical combinability is the unity of
semantically compatible words.
Compatibility may be stipulated by three factors: compatibility of denotative
meanings of words, compatibility of communicative situations, in which the
word may be used, and language compatibility proper. According to these
factors, we may distinguish between denotative, pragmatic, and lexical
compatibility. Depending on the context, the following three types of
combinability may be distinguished: syntactic combinability, semantic
combinability, and lexical combinability.

Syntactic combinability is viewed as an ability of a word to enter into

syntagmatic relations with other words on the level of the grammatical class of
words, that is, the totality of potentially possible syntactic relations of a word.
Semantic combinability is understood as an ability of a semantically realized
word to combine with other words on the level of sub-class of words (e.g. verbs
of movement, adjectives denoting size).
Lexical combinability stands for the ability of a word to combine with separate
words (combinability at the level of one word).

25. Inflectional and derivational morphology. Morphemes: free and

bound. Root, affix, stem./ 26. Word formation: Affixation.
Inflectional and derivational affixes.

Inflectional morphology is the study of the modification of words to fit into

different grammatical contexts whereas derivational morphology is the study
of the formation of new words that differ either in syntactic category or in
meaning from their bases. Therefore, this is the principle difference between
inflectional and derivational morphology. Moreover, in usage, the difference
between inflectional and derivational morphology is that the inflectional
morphemes are affixes that merely serve as grammatical markers and indicate
some grammatical information about a word whereas derivational morphemes
are affixes that are capable of either changing the meaning or the grammatical
category of the word.
Besides, the key difference between inflectional and derivational morphology is
that while inflectional morphemes create new forms of the same word,
derivational morphemes create new words.
Root is the smallest meaningful part of a word, which carries the fundamental
meaning, and cannot be further broken down.
A stem is made up of a root plus derivational affixes or processes, it is the part
of the word that can take inflections.
Suffixes are of two types, they can be either inflectional or derivational.
Inflection is a general grammatical process that combines words and affixes
(always suffixes in English) to produce alternative grammatical forms of words.
The preterit and Past Participle forming morph -ed is an inflectional morpheme.
(work-worked - it doesn’t reproduce the lexical item, which is substantially
different from the infinitive form work, it is simply a grammatical form
(inflectional variant) of one and the same word. Derivation is a lexical process
that results in forming a new word out of the existing ones by addition of a
derivational affix. A derivational affix has one of two functions: to convert one
part of speech to another (in which case it is called class changing) or to
change the meaning of the root (in which case it is called class maintaining)
Such affixes are important in the creation of new lexemes in the language,
thought they do not always change the grammatical class paradigm. The
derivational suffix
–ish when added to the adjectives blue, red, green can modify lexical meaning
the adjective base without changing the part of speech - ish (bluish, reddish),
but when
added to the nouns girl, boy, book, child it causes the change of part of speech
paradigm: - ish - (girlish, boyish, bookish, childish).

Productivity of derivational affixes may range from very limited to quite

extensive, depending upon whether they are found preserved in just a few words
and no longer used to create new words or whether they are found in many
words and still used to create new words. An example of an unproductive suffix
is –th in growth, width, wealth , whereas an example of a productive suffix is –
able in the words dependable, movable, changeable, rechargeable and the like.

There are only three derivational prefixes in English (they are no longer
productive), which are able to change the word class: a- (ashore, asleep, alive),
be- (bewitch, befriend, bedeck), and en- (enlarge, enrich, enable, ensure). Other
prefixes change only the meaning of the root, not its class.

There are several semantic classes of prefixes in English (suggested by L.

Brinton)

(a) Time
pre - prearrange, presuppose, preheat
post – postgraduate, postmodernism, postwar
after- aftershock, afterthought, afterglow

(b) Number
By- bilingual,
tri- tricycle, triannual, triconsonantal
multi - multinational, multilingual, multimillionaire
mono- monolingual, monotonous,

(c) Place
in- inward, in-patient, ingrown
ex- exhale, extract,
inter- interconnect, interbreed, interlace
d) Degree

super- supersensitive, supersaturated,

superheat over- overanxious, overconfident,
overdue under- underestimate, underpay,

(e) Privation
a- amoral, apolitical, asymmetric
un- unlock, untie, unfold

(f) Negation
un- unafraid, unsafe, unwise
anti- antisocial, antitrust, antiwar

(g) Size
micro- microcosm, microchip, microfilm
mini- miniskirt, minivan, minimall

Inflectional affixes are morphemes conveying grammatical meaning.

Student (base form)

students (plural form)
student’s (possessive
form)
students’ (plural possessive form).
An inflectional affix in English is always a suffix; there may be one per word. A
particular inflectional affix is attached to all or most members of a certain word
class, that is we can distinguish between: a) noun suffixes (those forming
nouns) – -er,
-dom, -ness, -ation; b) verb suffixes (those added to form verbs)– -en, -fy, -ize;
c) adjective suffixes - -able/ible, -less, -full, -ic, -ous; d) adverb suffixes - -ly,
-ward.

The distinction between the derivational and inflectional affixes is not

always clear-cut. For instance, the adverb forming suffix –ly is used to form
adjectives of the lovely type (lonely, lively, friendly and the like), the ‘past
participle’ suffix –ed is used to form adjectives, e. g. long-legged, curly-haired,
four-wheeled.

There is no clear distinction between the derivational and inflectional affixes,

since one and the same suffix can be used in either function.
Words without their grammatical morphemes are known as stems. A stem
may consist of the root alone, as in (room, box, child) or may be complicated
(boxing, childish, encouragement).
If the analysis is limited to stating the number and type of morphemes that
make up the word, it is referred to as morphemic. For instance, the word
carelessness may be analyzed into three morphemes: the root –care- and two
suffixes –ish and -ness.

Complex (or derived) words such as handful, eastward, contemporary, sportive

are formed from root words by adding some bound morphs – suffixes or
prefixes, while compound words (or simply compounds) are formed by
combining two or more words (free morphemes), e.g. hangover, sunflower,
good-for-nothing.

Bound morphemes are affixes, and they are of three types: suffixes (-ly),
prefixes (re-), and bound bases (cran-berry). A suffix is a morpheme following
the stem and forming a new derivative in a different word class: black, blacken,
blackness. Some suffixes can differentiate between lexical-grammatical classes
of words, which belong to the same word class: -ify and -er are both verb-
forming suffixes, but the former is the suffix of causative verbs (horrify, purify,
justify) and the latter is used to form frequentative verbs (flipper, glitter,
twitter).
 27. Word formation: Compounding. Classification of compounds.

Compounding or word-composition is one of the highly productive types of

word-formation in Modern English. Both compounding and derivation create
new words from the already existing morphemes. Derivation is the process by
which a new word is built from a base by addition of either prefix or suffix.
Compounding is the process involving combination of two bases, either with
or without prefixes or suffixes.
The noun dealer, for example, is formed from the verb to deal via
derivation; the word ladybird is created from the words lady and bird by means
of compounding and the lexeme bar-keeper is the combination of both types.
The words formed by means of compounding are called compounds.
Compounds are words made up of two derivational bases which are both free
forms. The bases may be of different degrees of complexity: simple:
honeymoon, derived: key holder and compound: windscreen wiper.
As a general rule, the word class of the last element determines the class of the
compound. Therefore, we classify compounds according to the word class:
noun compounds, verb compounds, adjective compounds, adverb compounds,
and special noun compounds. Examples of noun compounds are the following:
N + N (modifier—head): doorbell, moonbeam, birdbrain, egghead, and
eyewitness Adj + N (modifier—head): blackboard, blackbird, highball,
bluebonnet, and greenhouse

V + N (verb—object): daredevil, pickpocket, killjoy, and breakwater

Examples of verb compounds are the following:

N + V (Object—Verb): brainwash,
browbeat V + V (co-ordinate): dropkick,
freeze-dry Adj + V (not syntactic):
whitewash

Adv+ V (modifier—head): downgrade, undercut

Examples of adjective compounds are the following: (Verbs do not combine
with adjectives.)
N + Adj (not syntactic): seasick, snow-white
Adj+Adj (co—ordinate): metallic-green, blue-
green Adv+Adj (modifier—head): nearsighted

The last group contains special noun compounds: V + Adv=Noun compound.

This class of compounds is the only one that does not follow the general rule. In
this case, neither of the components determines the word class of the compound.
The noun compound drive-in is formed from the verb drive and the adverb in.
]
 28. Word Formation: Conversion, blending, and clipping.
Conversion is the word-formation process in which a word of one grammatical
form becomes a word of another grammatical form without any changes to
spelling or pronunciation. It is also called affixless derivation or zero-
suffixation
The morphemic shape of the original word remains unchanged: love — to love;
paper

— to paper; brief — to brief, work — to work; etcss – to

wireless, etc. Examples of types of conversion:
● Noun to verb: bottle (The wine was brewed in France but bottled in
Hong Kong.) butter (Don't butter the bread for me. I prefer jam.)
● Verb to noun: hit (He scored a hit in his first shot.) cheat (He used some
cheats in the computer game to make him win easier.) must (It is a must
for you to visit the Forbidden City if you go to Beijing.)
● Adjective to noun: regular (I am one of the regulars at the pubs in Tsim
Sha Tsui.) final (It is obvious that the LA Lakers will enter the NBA
Finals.) crazy (Stop shouting and running around like a crazy.)
● Adjective to verb: empty (Can you empty the bin for me, please?) dirty
(Don't sit on the floor. You might dirty your dress.) dry (Caught in the
rain, we were soaked to the skin. We dried ourselves beside the
fireplace.)
Substantivation as a process of adjectival conversion is widely spread in ME,
especially with proper nouns. Names of the inhabitants of the cities, countries,
names of nationalities: American, African, Armenian, Ukrainian.
Substantivized adjectives can be: fully substantivized (they can take an article;
used in the possessive case), e.g. a beloved, the beloveds; a captive; a female; a
relative; a native; and partially substantiated (do not acquire any new
paradigms, they are used only with definite article and are collective), e.g. the
rich, the mighty, the wounded, the learned, the mute, the slow, etc. Besides they
keep some qualities of adjectives (e.g.: they can be modified by adverbs). E. g.:
the very rich, the badly wounded etc.
Blending, types of blends

A word blend is formed by combining two separate words with different

meanings to form a new one. These words are often created to describe a new
invention or phenomenon that combines the definitions or traits of two existing
things.
There are different ways of creating word blends. One way is to combine
portions of two other words to make a new one. These word fragments are
called morphemes, the smallest units of meaning in a language. The word
"camcorder" for example, combines parts of "camera" and "recorder" Word
blends can also be created by joining a full word with a portion of another word
(called a splinter). For example, the word "motorcade" combines "motor" plus a
portion of "cavalcade."
Word blends can also be formed by overlapping or combining phonemes, which
are parts of two words that sound alike. One example of an overlapping word
blend is "Spanglish" which is an informal mix of spoken English and Spanish.
Blends can also be formed through the omission of phonemes. Geographers
sometimes refer to "Eurasia" the landmass that combines Europe and Asia. This
blend is formed by taking the first syllable of "Europe" and adding it to the
word "Asia."

Clipping is a type of word-building shortening of spoken words. Shortening

consists in the reduction of a word to one of its parts, as a result of which the
new form acquires some linguistic value of its own. The part retained does not
change phonetically, hence the necessity of spelling changes, e.g., double ::
dub, microphone: mike, tranquilizer: trank.
According to whether it is the final, initial, or middle part of the word that is
cut off we distinguish:
1) initial clipping (or aphesis , i.e. a pheresis , from Greek "aphairesis" - a
taking away), e.g., cap (captain), phone (telephone), story (history), chute
(parachute);
2) final clipping (or a pocope , from Greek "apokoptein" - cut off), e.g., cap
(captain), gym (gymnasium, gymnastics), lab (laboratory), ed (editor);
3) medial clipping (or syncope, from Greek "syncope" a cutting up), e.g.,
fancy (fantasy), ma'am (madam).
Final and initial clipping may be combined and result in the curtailed words
with the middle part of the prototype retained, e.g., flu (influenza), frig
(refrigerator), tec (detective).

29. Etymological make-up of the English vocabulary. Native words.

Etymology is a branch of linguistics investigating the origin and development

of separate words and morphemes. The vocabulary in comparison with
grammar and phonetic system is the most changeable and flexible part of any
language.
The native element in the vocabulary of English comprises words of Anglo-
Saxon origin brought to the British Isles in the 5-th century A.D. by the
Germanic tribes of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Here also belong words that were
coined later on the basis of these Anglo-Saxon words by means of various
processes operative in English. The borrowed element consists of words taken
over from other languages and modified in phonemic shape, spelling,
grammatical paradigm and meaning according to the standards of English.
Speaking of borrowed words in the language we should distinguish between the
terms “source of borrowing” and “origin of borrowing”. The first term is
applied to the language from which the loan word was taken into English. The
second refers to the language to which the word may be traced.
If we take the word paper as an example, we shall find out that it was borrowed
from French. In its turn, the French word papier was borrowed from Latin.
Before that, the Latin word papyrus had come to Latin from Greek, where it had
the form papyros. So, defining its etymology, we should say that the English
noun paper is a French borrowing of Greek origin. In the same way the English
noun table is a French borrowing of Latin origin, the noun school is a Latin
borrowing of Greek origin.
All native words in English can be subdivided in three main groups: Indo-
European, Common Germanic, and English proper.

By the Indo-European group of words we understand words containing roots

common to all Indo-European languages (Slavonic, Romanic, Germanic, Celtic,
Baltic, Iranian, and some others).
Cf.: brother – Bruder (German) – broder (Sweedish) – frater (Latin) – брат

Words of Indo-European origin in English include words denoting elementary

notions without which no human communication would be possible. We may
present them as belonging to the following semantic groups:
terms of kinship – father, mother, son, daughter, bother;

parts of the human body: arm, ear, eye, foot, heart, lip, nose;

names of animals, birds and plants: bull, cow, swine, goose, wolf, cat, crow,
tree, birch, corn;

words denoting some important phenomena of nature: sun, moon, star, wind,
water, wood, hill, stone;

times of day: day, night;

numerals from 1 to a 100;

adjectives denoting concrete physical properties: hard, quick, slow,
red, new; some most frequently used verbs: be, stand, sit, come, eat,
know.

By the Germanic group of words we understand words having parallels in all

the Germanic languages (English, German, Norwegian, Dutch, Icelandic,
Sweedish, Danish and others).
This group comprises nouns denoting:
seasons: summer, winter, spring;

natural phenomena: storm, rain, ice, frost;

human dwellings and furniture: house, room, bench;

parts of the human body: hand, ankle, head, finger,
bone; animals and plants: bear, fox, calf, oak, fir,
grass;

some adjectives: broad, dead, dear, grey, blue, green, white, little, soft, thick,
high, old, good;

some verbs: bake, burn, buy, drink, give, hear, keep, learn, make, rise, say,
speak, see, send, sing, shoot
The English Proper group consists of words which appeared on the British soil after
the 5th century A.D. and which have no cognates in other languages. Britain before
that time was inhabited by different Celtic tribes which in the 1st century B.C. were
conquered by Roman troops which stayed on the British Isles till the beginning of
the 5th century. So, if we go back as far as that, we can say that no England existed
at that time. Most of Europe was occupied by the Roman Empire. Britain was also
part of the Roman Empire up to the beginning of the 5th century when Roman
troops were called away to defend Rome. Then, in the year 449, the Germanic tribe
of Jutes, joined later by Saxons and Angles, began to invade the British Isles and
establish their settlements there. It was the beginning of the future English nation
and its language.
So, words considered to be English Proper, are purely English coinages having no
cognates in other languages. Thus, in Old English there were such compound nouns
as hlāford, hlāf-diğe, wīfman, dæğes-eağe which gave Modern English words lord,
lady, woman, and daisy. Also to English Proper belong the words bird, boy, girl,
always.

30. Origins of the English vocabulary: Scandinavian borrowings.

One of the major influences on the early vocabulary and grammar of English comes
from its North Germanic neighbours. From the 8th century until the 11th century,
the Anglo-Saxons were subjected to a series of attacks and invasions by
Scandinavian seafarers. The Scandinavians (also known as Vikings) spoke Old
Norse, the precursor of Danish and Norwegian in the North Germanic subgroup.
The first linguistic link between Viking and Anglo-Saxons is found in the large
number of Scandinavian place names in the northern and eastern parts of England,
as many as 1,400. These are place names ending in –by “settlement” (Carnaby,
Ellerby, Rugby, Thirtleby), -thorpe “hamlet” (Barleythorpe, Grimsthorpe,
Hamthorpe, Hilderthorpe, Low Claythorpe, Fridaythorpe), -thwaite “clearing”
(Hampsthwaite, Hunderthwaite, Husthwaite).
Scandinavian borrowings in English from the period between the 9th and the 12th
centuries are common words such as bag, call, cast, die, fellow, knife, hit, root,
skin, sky, ill, unit, wrong, the prepositions till and fro (as in “to and fro”), and the
pronouns they, them, their. There is probably Scandinavian influence on the
pronoun she, the verb form are, and the quantifiers both and same. In some
regional varieties of English today Scandinavian words exist side by side with the
more familiar word from the Standard language: garth vs. yard, kirk vs. church,
nay vs. no, trigg vs. true. Since the Vikings spoke a Germanic language, sharing
words with Old English, but pronouncing them differently, we find that one and the
same word has two pronunciations, Scandinavian and Old English, has evolved into
a pair of historically related words which are now two separate lexical items. Such
pairs in present and English are dike vs. ditch, scrub vs. shrub, skirt vs. shirt.

31. Origins of the English vocabulary: Greek and Latin loanwords.

Borrowing – a loan word, borrowed word – a word taken over from another
language and modified in phonemic shape, spelling, paradigm or meaning according
to the standards of the English language.

It is difficult and sometimes even impossible to determine the direct source of

borrowing, as Greek words are Latinized in form before they are made English, and
Latin words – Gallicized.

«texture» borrowed directly from Latin, «telegraph» – direct borrowing from Greek
tele (far) and gráphō(write), «figure» - the word is borrowed rather from Latin
figura, «Theatre» – is a Greek word which was borrowed by Romans

cherry (Lat. cerasum), pear (Lat. pirum), plum (Lat. prunus), pea (Lat. pisum), beet
(Lat. beta), pepper (Lat. piper), cup (Lat. cuppa), kitchen (Lat. coquina), mill (Lat.
molina), port (Lat. portus), wine (Lat. vinum), priest (Lat. presbyter), bishop (Lat.
episcopus), monk (Lat. monachus), nun (Lat. nonna), candle (Lat. candela)

From Greek nouns:

anemo- (Gk. anemos “wind” ): anemograph, anemometer, anemoscope antho- (Gk.
anthos “flower”): anthology, anthochlorin, anthogenetic, anthophagous

anthropo- (Gk. anthropos “man”): anthropology, anthrogeography,

anthropomorphic, anthropophagy, anthropoid

bio- (Gk. bios “way of life”): biochemistry, biogenesis, biograph, biography, biology,
bionomics, bioscope

broncho- (Gk. brogkos “windpipe” ): bronchocele, bronchoplegia,

bronchopulmonary, bronchopneumonia bronchitis

cephalo- (Gk. kephalē“head”): cephalocaudal, cephalofacial, cephalo mancy,

cephalopod, cephaloptera, cephalothorax

chloro- (Gk. khlōros “light green”): chloroform, chlorophyll, chlorophane; chlorate,

chlotine, chlorosis

chrono- (Gk. khronos “time”): chronogram, chronoisoterm, chronology,

chronometer, chronopher, chronothermal

geo- (Gk. geō- “earth”): geodesy, geognosy,geography, geology, geomancy,

geometry, geophone, geophysics, geotropic

helio- (Gk. hēlios “sun”): heliocentric, heliochromy, heliograph, heliometer,

heliostat, heliotherapy, heliotrope, heliotypy

hydro- (Gk. hudr- ”water”): hydrocarbon, hydrocephalic, hydrochloric, hydrogen,

hydrology, hydrometer, hydropathy, hydrophobia, hydroplane, hydrostatic

litho- (Gk. lithos ”stone”): lithocarp, lithochromatic, lithochrome, lithogenous,

lithography, lithomancy, lithophyte, lithotomy

logo- (Gk. logos “word”): logocyclic, logodaedaly, logograph, logomachia,

logomancy, logonomy, logotype

neuro- (Gr. neuron “nerve”): neurology, neuropathic, neurosis

phisio- (Gk. phusis “nature”): the y in this and other words of Greek origin is a Latin
spelling of Greek u): physiognomy, phisiography, phisiology

From Greek adjectives:

acro- (Gk. akros “topmost, extreme”): acrocephalic, acrolith, acromegaly, acropolis

aero- (Gk. aeros “of air”): aerodrome, aerodynamics, aeronaut, aerophore, aerophyte,
aeroplane, aerostat

archaeo- (Gk. arkhaios “ancient”): archaelogy, arcaeonomus, archaeopteryx

auto- (Gk.autos “same, self”): autobiography, autochthon, autocracy, autograph,

automatic, autonomy, automobile (the second element here is Latin), autotoxin,
autotype

caco- (Gk. kakos “bad, evil”): cacodyls, cacoepy, cacoethes, cacography, cacophony

eu- (Gk. eu “well”): eucalyptus, eudemonics, euhemerism, eulogy, euphemism,

euphrasy, euphuism, eurhythmics

hemi- (Gk. hēmi- “half”): hemicycle, hemipterous, hemispere, hemistich hetero- (Gk.
heteros “different”): heterodox, heterodyne, heterogeneous, heteromorphic,
heteronomy

holo- (Gk. holos “whole, entire”): holocarp, holocaust, holograph, holophote,

holospheric

homo- (Gk. homos “same”): homoblastic, homodont, homogeneous, homograph,

homology, homonym, homophone

idio- (Gk. idios “private, personal”): idiomatic, idiomorphic, idiopathic, idiosyncrasy

iso- (Gk. isos “equal”): isobar, isoclinic, isogonic, isopod, isotherm

macro- (Gk. makros “long”): macrobiosis, macrocosm, macrocephallic,

macrocranial, macropetalous, macropod

mega- (Gk. megas “large”): megacephalous, megalith, megapod, megatherium

megalo- (Gk. megalē “large”): megalomania, megalosaurus

micro- (Gk. mīkros “small”): microbiology, microcephalic, microcosm, micrometer,

microphone, microscope, microspore, microtome

mono- (Gk. monos“alone, single”): monochord, monochrome, monocycle,

monodrama, monogamy, monogram, monograph, monolith, monologue, monomania,
monomorphic, monopoly, monosyllable, monophthong, monotheism, monotone,
monotype

neo- (Gk. neos “new”): Neolithic, neologism, neophyte; neo-Classic, neo-Gothic,

neo-Platonism

pan- (Gk. pân“all”): panacea, pancratium, pandect, pandemic, panorma, panoply,

panopticon, pantechnicon

poly- (Gk. polus “much, many”): polyanthus, polyarchy, polychrome, polygamy,

polyglot, polygon, polymorphic, polyonomy, polyphone

From Greek prepositions, etc.:

amphi- (Gk. amphi “on both sides”): amphibrach, amphicentric, amphipod,

amphitheytre

anti- (Gk. anti“against”): antitoxin, antidote, antilogy, antipathy, antipyretic apo-

(Gk. apo “ away, apart”): apocope, apodeictic, apodosis, apology, apoplexy, apostasy,
apothem

cata- (Gk. kata “down from, against, over “, etc.): catabolism, cataclasm, cataclysm,
catalepsies, catalogue, cataplasm, cataract, catarrhine, catastrophe

dys- (Gk. dus-, with negative or pejorative force): dysentery, dysgenic, dyslogistic,
dyspepsia, dysphonia, dyspnoooea

endo- (Gk. endon “within”): endogamy, endocrine, endoderm, endogen, endomorph,

endoplasm, endosperm,
epi- (Gk. epi“on, over”): epicenter, epicycle, epidemic, epidermis, epiglottis,
epigram, epilepsy, epilogue, episcopacy, epistrophe, epistyle, epitaph, epithelium

hyper- (Gk. huper “beyond”): hyperbole, hyperborean, hypermetrical, hypertropic

meta- (Gk. meta “between”, often expressing change): metabolic, metacarpus,

metacentre, metamere, metamorphic, metaphor, metaphrase, metaphysics, metathesis

para- (Gk. para ”from, against”): parallel, paraphrase, paralipsis, paradigm, paradox,
paragraph, paralogism, paraplegia

peri- (Gk. peri “around”): perianth, pericardium, pericope, pericranium, peripatetic,

periphrase, periscope, perispomenon, peristyle

syn-, syl-, sym- (Gk. sun ”with”): synchronise, syncope, synecdoche, synonin,
synopsis, syntax, synthesis ; syllabus, syllable, syllogism ; symmetry, sympathy,
symphysis, sumptom, symposium

Latin affixes for nouns:

suffix – ion: legion, opinion

-tion: relation, temptation

For verbs: suffix: - ate: appreciate, create, congratulate

-ute: attribute, distribute

-ct, remnant suffix2 that is partly preserved in the structure of the word: act, collect,
conduct

Prefix: -dis: disable, disagree

For adjectives: Suffix: -able: disable, curable

-ant: constant, important

-ent: absent, evident

-or: major, senior

-al: solar, familiar

32. Origins of the English vocabulary: French borrowings.

French words from the Norman dialect penetrated the whole social life. Thus we have
the words of Norman-French borrowings denoting:

Administrative words: state, government, parliament, council, power.

Legal terms: court, judge, justice, crime, prison.

Military terms: army, was, soldier, officer, battle, enemy.

Educational terms: pupil, lesson, library, science, pen, pencil.

Terms of everyday life: autumn, dinner, table, uncle, plate, river.

French affixes of nouns:

The suffix: - ance: endurance, hindrance

-ence: consequence, patience

-ment: appointment, development

-age: courage, marriage, village

-ess: actress, adventuress

For verbs: The prefix: en-: enable, enact, enslave

For adjectives: The suffix: -ous: curious, dangerous

33. Neologisms.

A neologism - is a new lexical unit introduced into a language to denote a new object
or phenomenon. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person,
publication, period, or event.

Neologisms can develop in three main ways:

1. Semantic neologisms - a lexical unit existing in the language can change its
meaning to denote a new object or phenomenon.
In such cases we have semantic neologisms, e.g. the word «umbrella» developed the
meanings: «авіаційне прикриття», «політичне прикриття»
2. Lexical Neologisms - a new lexical unit can develop in the language to denote an
object or phenomenon which already has some lexical unit to denote it. In such cases
we have transnomination, e.g. the word «slum» was first substituted by the word
«ghetto» then by the word - group «inner town».
3.Nonce words (occasional words) - a new lexical unit can be introduced to denote a
new object or phenomenon. In this case we have «a proper neologism», many of
them are cases of new terminology.

At the present moment English is developing very swiftly and there is so called
«neology blowup».

We can point out several semantic groups when we analyze the group of neologisms
connected with computerization, and here we can mention words used:

In the sphere of lingusitics we have such neologisms as: machine translation,

interlingual / an artificial language for machine translation into several languages /
and many others.

In the sphere of biometrics we have computerized machines

which can recognize characteristic features of people seeking entrance : finger-
print scanner / finger prints/, biometric eye-scanner / blood-vessel arrangements in
eyes/, voice verification
In fashion industry:"cool hunter” n. is one who predicts new styles and trends,
(2009); “Selfie” n. is “a photograph that one has taken of oneself”, (2014);

Technological neologisms:“phablet” n. -means a “mobile smartphone with ambitions

to be a tablet computer” (2010), super-computer, multi-user, neurocomputer /
analogue of a human brain/; “generation text” n. means “the generation of young
people who are growing up in the age of text messaging”, (2014);

Political neologisms: “Chindia“ n. denotes “China and India considered together in

economic and strategic terms”, (2004);

Internet communication: “itwitterate” n. denotes the people, who do not know how
to use Twitter, (2012); “Facebookable” adj. means “something that is considered
appropriate enough to be viewed publicly on facebook amongst your friends,
family”, (2012);

Food neologisms: “wine o’clock” n. - means a time of day for starti ng to drink wine,
(2015); “Frankenfood” - is "genetically modified food”, (2012)

34. Vocabulary variation. Variation by location: national and regional

vocabulary.

Variation in vocabulary – The learning, knowledge, and processing of words. The

native speakers of a language differ in how many words they know

All languages change over time and vary according to place and social setting. We
can observe lexical variation – differences in words and phrases – by comparing the
way English is spoken in different places and among different social groups. Despite
the belief that dialect words are no longer very widely used, there remains a great
deal of lexical diversity in the UK. This is demonstrated, for instance, by the variety
of words used for 'bread roll' in different parts of the country. If you live in
Lancashire you might buy a barm cake, whilst people over the Pennines in Leeds
would probably ask for a bread cake. At a baker’s in Derby you might be offered
a cob and on a visit to Coventry you might eat a batch, although each of these words
refers pretty much to the same item.
(1) Regional variation. Apart from the kinds of variation described above, idioms
can vary along yet another, cross-dialectal axis. As might be expected, the
form, meaning and use of idiomatic expressions cannot be uniformly the
same across different national varieties of English: British, American,
Canadian, Australian, South African, Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian and
many other forms of English that are spoken around the world today. It is
also taken for granted that this dimension encompasses not just the national
varieties, but also the regional dialects of a single country. Cross-dialectal, or
regional variation involves differences on various language levels:
phonological, grammatical, lexical etc. Vocabulary differences will be
addressed in more detail in a discussion on vocabulary variation (Chapter
10?). In this chapter, we will examine how idiomatic expressions can vary
across dialects. We can divide idiom variation along a geographical or dialectal
axis into several categories (although there is some overlap between them):

 Varieties can have different idioms to convey the same (or very similar)
concept. For instance, Indian English has an expression that is not common in
either Britain or the USA, on the anvil, which means ‘in preparation; about to
appear or happen’, as in There are a few new roads on the anvil. This idiom,
although variety-specific, conveys a concept that is universal, but the phrase
itself is not necessarily known – let alone used – outside of South East Asia.
The more universally known English expressions that render a similar idea are
the informal in the pipeline or in the works.

 Idioms that reflect cultural differences, often with no equivalent in the other
variety. Every regional and national variety has a body of idioms that are
indigenous – and often confined – to their area of use. The cultural component
in the idioms of this group seems to be the most distinct. The Australian fair
dinkum, on the wallaby track (‘wandering about looking for work’) or waltz
matilda (‘travel about carrying a swag’), are prime examples of culture-specific
expressions, idioms that are inextricably linked to the culture in which they
emerged as they bear witness to the cultural contexts that gave rise to them.
 For example, the Indian English out of station meaning ‘out of town’ has its
origins in the posting of army officers to particular 'stations' during the days of
British colonization. Many culture-specific idioms in one variety of English
tend to lack equivalents in others, e.g. AmE shoot the breeze (‘chat
informally’) has no BrE equivalent idiom. Similarly, the BrE fall off the back
of a lorry (‘be stolen’) has no equivalent idiom in AmE.

 Different degrees of lexical distinctions in the same idioms are responsible

for a significant amount of dialectal variation within phrasal lexemes. These
differences are most easily observable in the forms of idioms used on the
different sides of the Atlantic:

BRITISH AMERICAN
not touch s/th with a bargepole not touch s/th with a ten foot pole

sweep under the carpet sweep under the rug

touch wood knock on wood

(not) see the wood for the trees (not) see the forest for the trees

be left holding the baby be left holding the bag

have green fingers have a green thumb

be on the cards be in the cards

throw a spanner in the works throw a monkey wrench in the

works
be all fingers and thumbs
be all thumbs
blow your own trumpet
blow your own horn
like death warmed up
like death warmed over
like a red rag to a bull
like waving a red flag in front of
 put/stick your oar in a bull

to all intents and purposes put in your two cents’ worth

take s/th in one’s stride for all intents and purposes

lead s/one a merry dance take s/th in stride

lead s/one a merry chase

■ Same idiom, different or additional meaning in other varieties. For the most part,
varieties of English share the core body of idiomatic expressions. Some idioms,
however, can have a different or additional meaning apart from the one shared by, if
not all, at least by most major varieties. For example, the adverbial phrase flat out,
which is used in different varieties of English, can mean different things depending
on which variety and what context it appears in. It can mean ‘as fast and with as
much effort as possible’ in BrE, as in They were working flat out to get the job done
on time. In American English it tends to be employed in the meaning ‘in a direct and
straightforward way’: Why don’t you ask her flat out what it is all about?;
‘completely’, as in I am flat out broke and ‘at top speed’, e.g. He was going flat out
when he hit a tree. In the speech of Australians it usually means ‘very busy (or fast)’,
e.g. I can't take on another project, I'm flat out.  This by no means suggests that
meanings do not spill over from one variety to another – this, in fact, happens all the
time.

A further important point to be made is that each variety undergoes independent

linguistic change over time and because of it, distinctions in the structure,
meaning and use of idioms can become more pronounced. One variety may
preserve archaic expressions that another or others have lost, or may introduce
new meanings for old idioms which others do not have. An interesting example is
the expression do the needful. This expression, now archaic or used humorously
except in Pakistani, Indian, and Sri Lankan English, means "do what is requisite or
necessary". The expression was current in both British and American English well
into the early 20th century, but has now gone out of use. On the rare occasions when it
does appear in British or American English, it is usually parodied as an example of
contemporary South Asian English or to make a reference to a country from that
region. There is a plethora of examples like this. In other scenarios, an expression
can arise in one variety, be adopted by another and be actually associated with
the ‘host’ variety. Paddle one's own canoe, which has taken a curious path of
development over the past three centuries, is one notable example. It is an American
English idiom of the late 18th and early 19th century that was derived from the speech
of the American natives. Interestingly, this idiom has gained such wide currency in
British English that it is now preferred in that variety, which is evidenced by the fact
that LDOCE specifically labels it as British.

One final point to be made is that there is a distinction between idiomatic variation
and idiomatic synonymy. Variation usually involves the same structure; most of the
lexical items are also the same. Generally one lexical element is subject to variation,
e.g. simile-based phrasal lexemes denoting the quality of stupidity as stupid as a
goose / an ass / a donkey / an owl / a log / a sloth demonstrate variation. On the other
hand, expressions like as daft as a brush, as thick as two short planks, silly like a
stunned mullet, as free from sense as a frog from feathers, nutty as a fruitcake, as
balmy as a bandicoot (Aus.), etc. will be generally considered synonyms.

35. Major differences between British and American English with respect to
vocabulary.

1) Spelling differences

British English American English

-oe-/-ae- (e.g. anaemia, diarrhoea, -e- (e.g. anemia, diarrhea, encyclopedia)
encyclopaedia)
-t (e.g. burnt, dreamt, leapt) -ed (e.g. burned, dreamed, leaped)
-ence (e.g. defence, offence, licence) -ense (defense, offense, license)
-ell- (e.g. cancelled, jeweller, marvellous) -el- (e.g. canceled, jeweler, marvelous)
-ise (e.g. appetiser, familiarise, organise) -ize (e.g. appetizer, familiarize, organize)
-l- (e.g. enrol, fulfil, skilful) -ll- (e.g. enroll, fulfill, skillfull)
-ogue (e.g. analogue, monologue, -og (e.g. analog, monolog, catalog)
catalogue)
-ou (e.g. colour, behaviour, mould) -o (e.g. color, behavior, mold)
-re (e.g. metre, fibre, centre) -er (e.g. meter, fiber, center)
-y- (e.g. tyre) -i- (e.g. tire)

2) Vocabulary differences

British English American English

trousers pants
flat apartment
bonnet (the front of the car) hood
boot (the back of the car) trunk
lorry truck
university college
holiday vacation
jumper sweater
crisps chips
chips French fries
trainers sneakers
fizzy drink soda
postbox mailbox
biscuit cookie
chemist drugstore
shop store
football soccer

3) Grammar differences

There are certain grammar differences between British and American English. For
instance, in American English, collective nouns are considered singular (e.g. The
band is playing). In contrast, collective nouns can be either singular or plural in
British English, although the plural form is most often used (e.g. The band are
playing).

The British are also more likely to use formal speech, such as ‘shall’, whereas
Americans favour the more informal ‘will’ or ‘should’.   

Americans, however, continue to use ‘gotten’ as the past participle of ‘get’, which the
British have long since dropped in favour of ‘got’.
‘Needn’t’, which is commonly used in British English, is rarely, if at all used in
American English. In its place is ‘don’t need to’.

In British English, ‘at’ is the preposition in relation to time and place. However, in
American English, ‘on’ is used instead of the former and ‘in’ for the latter.

36. Main types of dictionaries. Selection of lexical units and the structure of
dictionary entries. Approaches to the arrangement of polysemous words in
dictionaries. Corpus-based lexicography.

Other types

 Bilingual dictionary.

 Collegiate dictionary (American)

 Learner's dictionary (mostly British)

 Electronic dictionary.

 Encyclopedic dictionary.

 Monolingual learner's dictionary. Advanced learner's dictionary.

 By sound. Rhyming dictionary.

 Reverse dictionary (Conceptual dictionary)

A linguistic dictionary is a book of words of a language, usually listed

alphabetically, with definitions, pronunciations, etymologies and other linguistic
information or with their equivalents in another language (or other language).

American dictionaries include scientific, technical, geographical and bibliographical

items. British dictionaries devote maximum space to the linguistic properties of
words.
Two approaches to the study of polysemy

Synchronic and Diachronic

There are two principle approaches in linguistic science to the study of language
material: synchronic & diachronic. With regard to Special lexicology the synchronic
approach is concerned with the vocabulary of a language as it exists at a given time.
It’s Special Descriptive lexicology that deals with the vocabulary & vocabulary units
of a particular language at a certain time.

The diachronic approach in terms of Special lexicology deals with the changes in the
development of vocabulary in the coarse of time. It is Special Historical lexicology
that deals with the evaluation of the vocabulary units of a language as the time goes
by.

The two approaches shouldn’t be set one against the other. In fact, they are
interconnected & interrelated because every linguistic structure & system exists in a
state of constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a
result of a long process of linguistic evaluation, of its historical development. Closely
connected with the Historical lexicology is Contrastive & Comparative lexicology
whose aims are to study the correlation between the vocabularies of two or more
languages & find out the correspondences between the vocabulary units of the
languages under comparison. Lexicology studies various lexical units. They are:
morphemes, words, variable word-groups & phraseological units. We proceed from
the assumption that the word is the basic unit of the language system, the largest on
morphological & the smallest on syntactic plane of linguistic analyses. The word is a
structural & semantic entity within the language system. The word as well as any
linguistic sign is a two-faced unit possessing both form & content or, to be more
exact, sound-form & meaning.
e. g. boy - бой

When used in actual speech the word undergoes certain modification & functions in
one of its forms. The system showing a word in all its word-forms is called a
paradigm. The lexical meaning of a word is the same throughout the paradigm. The
grammatical meaning varies from one form to another. Therefore when we speak on
any word as used in actual speech we use the term “word" conventionally because
what is manifested in the utterances is not a word as a whole but one of its forms
which is identified as belonging to the definite paradigm. Words as a whole are to be
found in the dictionary (showing the paradigm n - noun, v - verb, etc). There are two
approaches to the paradigm: as a system of forms of one word revealing the
differences & the relationships between them.

e. g. to see – saw - seen – seeing

( different forms have different relations )

In abstraction from concrete words the paradigm is treated as a pattern on which

every word of one part of speech models its forms, thus serving to distinguish one
part of speech from another.

Besides the grammatical forms of words there are lexical varieties which are called
“variants" of words. Words seldom possess only one meaning, but used in speech
each word reveals only that meaning which is required.
e. g. to learn at school to make a dress

to learn about smth. ⁄smbd. to make smbd. do smth.

These are lexico-semantic variants.

There are also phonetic & morphological variants.

e. g. “often” can be pronounced in two ways, though the sound-form is slightly

changed, the meaning remains unchangeable. We can build the forms of the word “to
dream" in different ways:

to dream - dreamt - dreamt

dreamed-dreamed

These are morphological variants. The meaning is the same but the model is different.

discourse - extended verbal expression in speech or writing

word - a unit of language

syllable - a unit of spoken language larger than a phoneme

phoneme - A phoneme is the basic unit of phonology. It is the smallest unit of sound
that may cause a change of meaning within a language, but that doesn’t have meaning
by itself. 
lexeme - a minimal unit (as a word or stem) in the lexicon of a language

morpheme minimal meaningful language unit

formative - minimal language unit that has a syntactic (or morphological) function

name - a language unit by which a person or thing is known

string - a linear sequence of symbols (characters or words or phrases)

collocation - a grouping of words in a sentence

speech sound, phone, sound - (phonetics) an individual sound unit of speech without
concern as to whether or not it is a phoneme of some language

sign - a fundamental linguistic unit linking a signifier to that which is signified

Investigating lexicographic issues

Lexicography is concerned with the meaning and use of words. Traditionally,

lexicographic research investigated the meanings of words and synonyms. In more
recent times, such investigations have been extended using corpus-based techniques
to study the ways that words are used, considering issues such as:

– How common are different words?

– How common are the different senses for a given word?

– Do words have systematic associations with other words?

– Do words have systematic associations with particular registers or dialects?

This area of study is, of course, central to dictionary making. However, lexicographic
research is also central to descriptive and applied linguistics. Many linguists argue
that adequate grammatical analyses must incorporate lexicographic information about
individual words. Further, as Chapter 4 shows, grammatical and lexicographic
patterns interact in systematic ways. For applied linguists, lexicographic studies
provide an important source of information for language students and teachers. For
instance, where traditional approaches might identify a group of synonymous words,
corpus-based lexicographic research attempts to show how related words are used in
different ways and are appropriate in different contexts.

Unlike much of linguistics, the field of dictionary making has long been influenced
by empirical and corpus-based methods. As early as 1755, for example, Johnson used
a corpus of texts to gather authentic uses of words, which he then included as
examples in his dictionary of English.

37. Methods of lexicological investigation: Componential analysis.

In the componential analysis linguists proceed from the assumption that the
denotational component of word meaning can be seen as a complex cluster of smaller
units - semantic components, or semes organized in a componential structure.

man can be described as [+HUMAN] [+ADULT] [+MALE]

boy as [+HUMAN] [–ADULT (not adult)] [+MALE]
woman as [+HUMAN] [+ADULT] and [–MALE (not male, but female)]
girl as [+HUMAN] [–ADULT (not adult)] and [– MALE (not male, but female)].

It helps to find out which of the meanings should be represented first of all in the
dictionaries of different types and how the words should be combined in order to
make your speech sensible.

38. Methods of lexicological investigation: Transformational analysis.

Transformational analysis - repatterning (reorganization) of identical distributional

structures in order to discover difference or sameness of their meaning.

Example of transformation:

his work is excellent – his excellent work – the excellence of his work – he works
excellently
The aim of the transformational analysis:

to investigate polysemantic patterns (e.g. compounds which have the same pattern (n
+ n) may have different lexical meanings: dogfight – a fight between dogs; dogcart –
a cart drawn by dogs)

39. Methods of lexicological investigation: Distributional analysis.

Distribution - the position which linguistic units may occupy in the flow of speech, or
the co-occurrence of units of the same level: words to words, morpheme to
morphemes.

The aim of the distributional analysis:

1) the investigation of sameness / difference of meaning of words and word-

groups
2) the analysis of word-formation.

The word has different meanings in different patterns:

- to treat smb kindly (treat + N + Adv) – to behave towards;

- to treat smb to ice-cream (treat + N + to + N) – to supply with smth at one’s own
expense.

The boy__________ home.

the missing word is easily identified as a verb (came, went, goes, etc.), but not as an
adverb or a noun, or an adjective

40. Methods of lexicological investigation: Immediate Constituent(s) analysis.

The theory of Immediate Constituents is based on the idea that combinations of units
are usually structured into hierarchial sets of binary constructions (Immediate
Constituents.)
The aim of the Immediate Constituents analysis:

1) to find out the morphemic structure of lexical units:

«Friendliness»

А) is divided into the component friendly-, occurring in such words as friendly,

friendly-looking, and the component ness- as in dark-ness, happy-ness.
В) is divided into friend- and -ly which are ultimate constituents (cannot be divided
into smaller meaningful units).

2) to determine the ways in which lexical units are relevantly related to one
another:

«a black dress in severe style»

a black dress | in severe style

a + black + dress | in + severe + style

Immediate Constituents analysis depends on the meaning of the whole complex: «fat
major’s wife»?

fat major’s | wife

fat | major’s wife