Question #20.

Synonymy is one of modern linguistics' most controversial problems. The very existence of words
traditionally called synonyms is disputed by some linguists; the nature and essence of the relationships
of these words is hotly debated and treated in quite different ways by the representatives of different
linguistic schools. Even though one may accept that synonyms in the traditional meaning of the term are
somewhat elusive and, to some extent, fictitious it is certain that there are words in any vocabulary
which clearly develop regular and distinct relationships when used in speech.

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

Synonyms are two or more words belonging to the same part of speech and possessing one or more
identical or nearly identical denotational meanings, interchangeable in some contexts. These words are
distinguished by different shades of meaning, connotations and stylistic features (пример тут короче
"... smile, not grin." Yet, to grin means more or less the same as to smile, only, perhaps, denoting a
broader and a rather foolish smile).

Criteria of Synonymy.

We are still not certain which words should correctly be considered as synonyms, nor are we agreed as
to the characteristic features which qualify two or more words as synonyms.

Traditional linguistics solved this problem with the conceptual criterion and defined synonyms 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.

In contemporary research on synonymy semantic criterion is frequently used. In terms of componential

analysis synonyms may be defined as words with the same denotation, or the same denotative
component, but differing in connotations, or in connotative components. (таблица к этому абзацу)

The common denotation convincingly shows that, according to the semantic criterion, the words
grouped in the above table are synonyms. The connotative components represented on the right side of
the table highlight their differentiations.
In modern research on synonyms the criterion of interchangeability is sometimes applied. According to
this, synonyms are defined as words which are interchangeable at least in some contexts without any
considerable alteration in denotational meaning. This criterion of interchangeability has been much
criticised. Every or almost every attempt to apply it to this or that group of synonyms seems to lead one
to the inevitable conclusion that either there are very few synonyms or, else, that they are not
interchangeable.

It is sufficient to choose any set of synonyms placing them in a simple context to demonstrate the point.
Let us take, for example, the synonyms from the above table.

Cf.: He glared at her (i. e. He looked at her angrily). He gazed at her (i. e. He looked at her steadily and
attentively; probably with admiration or interest).

He glanced at her (i. e. He looked at her briefly and turned away).

He peered at her (i. e. He tried to see her better, but something prevented: darkness, fog, weak eyesight).

These few simple examples are sufficient to show that each of the synonyms creates an entirely new
situation which so sharply differs from the rest that any attempt at "interchanging" anything can only
destroy the utterance devoiding it of any sense at all.

In conclusion, let us stress that even if there are some synonyms which are interchangeable, it is quite
certain that there are also others which are not. A criterion, if it is a criterion at all, should be applicable
to all synonyms and not just to some of them. Otherwise it is not acceptable as a valid criterion.

The only existing classification system for synonyms was established by Academician V. V.
Vinogradov:

1. Ideographic (which he defined as words conveying the same concept but differing in shades of
meaning)

Ideographic synonyms denote different shades of meaning or different degrees of a given quality. They
are nearly identical in one or more denotational meanings and interchangeable at least in some
contexts, e.g. beautiful - fine - handsome -pretty Beautiful conveys, for instance, the strongest meaning;
it marks the possession of that quality in its fullest extent, while the other terms denote the possession
of it in part only. Fineness, handsomeness and prettiness are to beauty as parts to a whole. In the
synonymic group choose, select, opt, elect, pick the word choose has the most general meaning, the
others are characterised by differences clearly statable: select implies a wide choice of possibilities
(select a Christmas present for a child), opt implies an alternative (either this, or that as in Fewer
students are opting for science courses nowadays); pick often implies collecting and keeping for future
use (pick new words), elect implies choosing by vote (elect a president; elect smb (to be) chairman).

2. Stylistic (differing in stylistic characteristics)

Stylistic synonyms differ not so much in denotational as in emotive value or stylistic sphere of
application. Literary language often uses poetic words, archaisms as stylistic alternatives of neutral
words, e.g. maid for girl, bliss for happiness, steed for horse, quit for leave. Calling and vocation in the
synonymic group occupation, calling, vocation, business are high-flown as compared to occupation and
business. In many cases a stylistic synonym has an element of elevation in its meaning, e.g. face - visage,
girl - maiden. Along with elevation of meaning there is the reverse process of degradation: to begin - to
fire away, to eat - to devour, to steal - to pinch, face - muzzle.

3. Absolute (coinciding in all their shades of meaning and in all their stylistic characteristics)

absolute synonyms are rare in the vocabulary and, on the diachronic level, the phenomenon of absolute
synonymy is anomalous and consequently temporary: the vocabulary system invariably tends to abolish
it either by rejecting one of the absolute synonyms or by developing differentiation characteristics in
one or both (or all) of them.

Types of Connotations

I. The connotation of degree or intensity can be traced in such groups of synonyms as to surprise — to
astonish — to amaze — to astound; to satisfy — to please — to content — to gratify — to delight — to
exalt; to shout — to yell — to bellow — to roar; to like — to admire — to love — to adore — to worship.
As the table on p. 189 shows, some words have two and even more connotative components in their
semantic structures. In the above list the synonymic groups headed by to satisfy and to like contain
words which can be differentiated not only by the connotation of intensity but by other types which will
be described later.

II. In the group of synonyms to stare — to glare — to gaze — to glance — to peep — to peer, all the
synonyms except to glance denote a lasting act of looking at somebody or something, whereas to glance
describes a brief, passing look. These synonyms may be said to have a connotation of duration in their
semantic structure.

Other examples are: to flash (brief) — to blaze (lasting); to shudder (brief) — to shiver (lasting); to say
(brief) — to speak, to talk (lasting). All these synonyms have other connotations besides that of
duration.

III. The synonyms to stare — to glare — to gaze are differentiated from the other words of the group by
emotive connotations, and from each other by the nature of the emotion they imply.

IV. The evaluative connotation conveys the speaker's attitude towards the referent, labelling it as good
or bad. So in the group wellknown— famous — notorious — celebrated, the adjective notorious bears a
negative evaluative connotation and celebrated a positive one.

V. The causative connotation can be illustrated by the examples to sparkle and to glitter given above:
one's eyes sparkle with positive emotions and glitter with negative emotions. However, this connotation
of to sparkle and to glitter seems to appear only in the model "Eyes + Sparkle/Glitter".

VI. The connotation of manner can be singled out in some groups of verbal synonyms. The verbs to stroll
— to stride — to trot — to pace — to swagger — to stagger — to stumble all denote different

ways and types of walking, encoding in their semantic structures the length of pace, tempo, gait and
carriage, purposefulness or lack of purpose.

The dominant synonym.

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

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

The dominant synonym expresses the notion common to all synonyms of the group in the most general
way, without contributing any additional information as to the manner, intensity, duration or any
attending feature of the referent. So, any dominant synonym is a typical basic-vocabulary word.
 Question #21.

Euphemism, as is known, is a word or phrase used to replace an unpleasant word or expression by a

conventionally more acceptable one. This device is dictated by social conventions which are sometimes
apt to be over-sensitive.

The word lavatory has, naturally, produced many euphemisms. Here are some of them: powder room,
washroom, restroom, retiring room, (public) comfort station, ladies' (room), gentlemen's (room),

water-closet, w.c. ([d0blju:'si:]), public conveniences and even Windsor castle (which is a comical phrase
for "deciphering" w.c.).

Pregnancy is another topic for "delicate" references. Here are some of the euphemisms used as
substitutes for the adjective pregnant: in an interesting condition, in a delicate condition, in the family
way, with a baby coming, (big) with child, expecting.

Euphemisms may, of course, be used due to genuine concern not to hurt someone's feelings. For
instance, a liar can be described as a person who does not always strictly tell the truth and a stupid man
can be said to be not exactly brilliant. All the euphemisms that have been described so far are used to
avoid the so-called social taboos. Their use, as has already been said, is inspired by social convention.

Superstitious taboos gave rise to the use of other type of euphemisms. The reluctance to call things by
their proper names is also typical of this type of euphemisms, but this time it is based on a deeply-
rooted subconscious fear. Superstitious taboos have their roots in the distant past of mankind

when people believed that there was a supernatural link between a name and the object or creature it
represented. Therefore, all the words denoting evil spirits, dangerous animals, or the powers of nature

were taboo. If uttered, it was believed that unspeakable disasters would result not only for the speaker
but also for those near him. That is why all creatures, objects and phenomena threatening danger were
referred to in a round-about descriptive way. So, a dangerous animal might be described as the one-
lurking-in-the-wood and a mortal disease as the black death.

The Christian religion also made certain words taboo. The proverb Speak of the devil and he will appear
must have been used and taken quite literally when it was first used, and the fear of calling the devil by
name was certainly inherited from ancient superstitious beliefs. So, the word devil became taboo, and a
number of euphemisms were substitutes for it: the Prince of Darkness, the black one, the evil one.

The word God, due to other considerations, also had a great number of substitutes which can still be
traced in such phrases as Good/ Lord!, By Heavens/, Good Heavens!, (My) goodness!

All the above examples show that euphemisms are substitutes for their synonyms. Their use and very
existence are caused either by social conventions or by certain psychological factors. Most of them have
stylistic connotations in their semantic structures. One can also assume that there is a special
euphemistic connotation that can be singled out in the semantic structure of each such word. Let us
point out, too, that euphemistic connotations in formal euphemisms are different in "flavour" from
those in slang euphemistic substitutes. In the first case they are solemn and delicately evasive, and in
the second rough and somewhat cynical, reflecting an attempt to laugh off an unpleasant fact.

Antonymy.

We use the term antonyms to indicate words of the same category of parts of speech which have
contrasting meanings, such as hot — cold, light — dark, happiness — sorrow, to accept — to reject, up
— down.
If synonyms form whole, often numerous, groups, antonyms are usually believed to appear in pairs. Yet,
this is not quite true in reality. For instance, the adjective cold may be said to have warm for its second
antonym, and sorrow may be very well contrasted with gaiety. On the other hand, a polysemantic word
may have an antonym (or several antonyms) for each of its meanings. So, the adjective dull has the
antonyms interesting, amusing, entertaining for its meaning of "deficient in interest", clever, bright,

capable for its meaning of "deficient in intellect", and active for the meaning of "deficient in activity",
etc. Antonymy is not evenly distributed among the categories of parts of speech. Most antonyms are
adjectives which is only natural because qualitative characteristics are easily compared and contrasted:
high — low, wide — narrow, strong — weak, old — young, friendly — hostile.

Verbs take second place, so far as antonymy is concerned. Yet, verbal pairs of antonyms are fewer in
number. Here are some ofthem: to lose — to find, to live — to die, to open — to close, to weep— to
laugh.

Nouns are not rich in antonyms, but even so some examples can be given: friend — enemy, joy — grief,
good — evil, heaven — earth, love — hatred.

Antonymic adverbs can be subdivided into two groups: a) adverbs derived from adjectives: warmly —
coldly, merrily — sadly, loudly— softly; b) adverbs proper: now — then, here — there, ever — never, up
— down, in — out.

Not so many years ago antonymy was not universally accepted as a linguistic problem, and the
opposition within antonymic pairs was regarded as purely logical and finding no reflection in the
semantic structures of these words. The contrast between heat and cold or big and small, said most
scholars, is the contrast of things opposed by their very nature.

Nowadays most scholars agree that in the semantic structures of all words, which regularly occur in
antonymic pairs, a special antonymic connotation can be singled out. We are so used to coming across
hot and cold together, in the same contexts, that even when we find hot alone, we cannot help
subconsciously registering it as not cold, that is, contrast it to its missing antonym. The word possesses
its full meaning for us not only due to its direct associations but also because we subconsciously oppose
it to its antonym, with which it is regularly used, in this case to hot. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest
that the semantic structure of hot can be said to include the antonymic connotation of "not cold", and
the semantic structure of enemy the connotation of "not a friend". It should be stressed once more that
we are speaking only about those antonyms which are characterised by common occurrences, that is,
which are regularly used in pairs. When two words frequently occur side by side in numerous contexts,
subtle and complex associations between them are not at all unusual. These associations are naturally
reflected in the words' semantic structures. Antonymic connotations are a special case of such
"reflected associations".

Question #22.

Informal Style

Informal vocabulary is used in one's immediate circle: family, relatives or friends. One uses informal
words when at home or when feeling at home. Informal style is relaxed, free-and-easy, familiar and
unpretentious. Informal words and word-groups are traditionally divided into three types: colloquial,
slang and dialect words and word-groups.

Colloquial Words

Among other informal words, colloquialisms are used by everybody, and their sphere of communication
is comparatively wide, at least of literary colloquial words. These are informal words that are used in
everyday conversational speech both by cultivated and uneducated people of all age groups. The sphere
of communication of literary colloquial words also include the printed page.

Vast use of informal words is one of the prominent features of 20th century English and American
literature. It is quite natural that informal words appear in dialogues in which they realistically reflect
the speech of modern people.

However, in modern fiction informal words are not restricted to conversation in their use, but
frequently appear in descriptive passages as well. In this way the narrative is endowed with
conversational features. The author creates an intimate, warm, informal atmosphere.

“Fred Hardy was a bad lot (пользовался дурной славой). Pretty women and

an unlucky knack for backing the wrong horse had landed him in the

bankruptcy court by the time he was twenty-five…” (From W.S. Maugham).

Here are some more examples of literary colloquial words. Pal (кореш, друг) and chum (приятель,
дружок) are colloquial equivalents of friend; girl, when used colloquially, denotes a woman of any age;
bite and snack (quick meal – перекусить) stand for meal; hi, hello are informal greetings, and so long a
form of parting; start, go on, finish and be through (покончить) are also literary colloquialisms.

A considerable number of shortenings are found among words of this type. E.g. pram, exam, fridge, flu,
zip, movie.

Verbs with post-positional adverbs are also numerous among colloquialisms: put up, put over, make up,
make out, turn up, etc.

Literary colloquial words are to be distinguished from familiar colloquial and low colloquial.

The borderline between the literary and familiar colloquial is not always clearly marked. Yet the circle of
speakers using familiar colloquial is more limited: these words are used mostly by the young and the
semi-educated. This vocabulary group closely verges on slang and has something of its coarse flavour.

E.g. doc (for doctor), ta-ta (for good-bye), to kid smb.(for tease, banter – подшутить), to pick up smb.
(for make a qick and easy acquaintance), shut up (for keep silent).

Low colloquial(просторечие) is defined as uses characteristic of the speech of persons who may be
broadly described as uncultivated. This group is stocked with words of illiterate (неграмотный) English
which do not present much interest for our purposes.

The problem of functional styles is not one of purely theoretical interest, but represents a particularly
important aspect of the language-learning process. Students often misunderstand the term
“colloquial”and use it for “conversational”.The marker “colloquial”is a sign of restricted usage – not in
formal circumstances or in reports. But literary colloquial words should be included in functional
vocabulary, presented and drilled in suitable contexts and situations, mainly in dialogues. It is important
to associate these words with informal, relaxed situations.

Slang

The Oxford English Dictionary defines slang as “language of a highly colloquial style, considered as below
the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words
employed in some special sense.”

All or most slang words are current words whose meanings have been metaphorically shifted. Each slang
metaphor is rooted in a joke, but not in a kind or amusing joke. This is the criterion for distinguishing
slang from colloquialisms: most slang words are metaphors and jocular, often with a coarse, mocking,
cynical colouring. Then why do people use slang?

For a number of reasons. To be picturesque, arresting, striking and, above all, different from others. To
demonstrate one’s spiritual independence and daring. To sound “modern” and “up-to-date”. Yet, slang's
colourful and humorous quality makes it catching, so that a considerable part of slang may become
accepted by nearly all the groups of speakers.

It doesn’t mean that all these aims are achieved by using slang. But these are the main reasons for using
it.The circle of users of slang is more narrow than that of colloquialisms. It is mainly used by the young
and uneducated.

Dialect words.

H. W. Fowler defines a dialect as "a variety of a language which prevails in a district, with local
peculiarities of vocabulary, pronunciation and phrase". [19] England is a small country, yet it has many
dialects which have their own distinctive features (e. g. the Lancashire, Dorsetshire, Norfolk dialects).

So dialects are regional forms of English. Standard English is defined by the Random House Dictionary as
the English language as it is written and spoken by literate people in both formal and informal usage and
that is universally current while incorporating regional differences. [54]

Dialectal peculiarities, especially those of vocabulary, are constantly being incorporated into everyday
colloquial speech or slang. From these levels they can be transferred into the common stock, i. e. words
which are not stylistically marked (see "The Basic Vocabulary", Ch. 2) and a few of them even into formal
speech and into the literary language. Car, trolley, tram began as dialect words.

A snobbish attitude to dialect on the part of certain educationalists and scholars has been deplored by a
number of prominent linguists. E. Partridge writes:

"The writers would be better employed in rejuvenating the literary (and indeed the normal cultured)
language by substituting dialectal freshness, force, pithiness, for standard exhaustion, feebleness, long-
windedness than in attempting to rejuvenate it with Gallicisms, Germanicisms, Grecisms and Latinisms."

In the following extract from The Good Companions by J. B. Priestley, the outstanding English writer
ingeniously and humorously reproduces his native Yorkshire dialect. The speakers are discussing a
football match they have just watched. The author makes use of a number of dialect words and
grammatical structures and, also, uses spelling to convey certain phonetic features of "broad Yorkshire".

"'Na Jess!' said the acquaintance, taking an imitation calabash pipe out of his mouth and then winking
mysteriously.

'Na Jim!' returned Mr. Oakroyd. This 'Na' which must once have been 'Now', is the recognised salutation
in Bruddersford,1 and the fact that it sounds more like a word of caution than a word of greeting is by
no means surprising. You have to be careful in Bruddersford.

'Well,' said Jim, falling into step, 'what did you think on 'em?'

'Think on 'em!' Mr. Oakroyd made a number of noises with his tongue to show what he thought of
them.

1 Bruddersford, the scene of the extract, is easily recognizable as Bradford, Priestley's birthplace.
... 'Ah '11 tell tha7 what it is, Jess,' said his companion, pointing the stem of his pipe and becoming
broader in his Yorkshire as he grew more philosophical. 'If t' United1 had less brass2 to lake3 wi', they'd
lake better football.'His eyes searched the past for a moment, looking for the team that had less money
and had played better football. 'Tha can remember when t' club had niwer4 set eyes on two thousand
pahnds, when t' job lot wor not worth two thahsand pahnds, pavilion and all, and what sort of football
did they lake then? We know, don't we? They could gi' thee1 summat5 worth watching then. Nah, it's all
nowt,6 like t' ale an' baccy7 they ask so mich8 for — money fair thrawn away, ah calls it. Well, we mun9
'a' wer teas and get ower it. Behave thi-sen/10 Jess!' And he turned away, for that final word of caution
was only one of Bruddersford's familiar good-byes.

'Ay,11 replied Mr. Oakroyd dispiritedly. 'So long, Jim!'"

1 tha (thee) — the objective case of thou; 2 brass — money; 3 to lake — to play; 4 nivver — never; 5
summat — something; 6 nowt — nothing; 7 baccy — tobacco; 8 mich — much; 9 тип — must; 10 thi-sen
(= thy-self) — yourself; 11 ay(e) — yes.

Question #23.

Formal Style

We have already pointed out that formal style is restricted to formal situations. In general, formal words
fall into two main groups: words associated with professional communication and a less exclusive group
of so-called learned words.

Learned words.

These words are mainly associated with the printed page. It is in this vocabulary stratum that poetry and
fiction find their main resources.

The term "learned" is not precise and does not adequately describe the exact characteristics of these
words. A somewhat out-of-date term for the same category of words is "bookish", but, as E. Partridge
notes, "'book-learned' and 'bookish' are now uncomplimentary. The corresponding complimentaries are
'erudite', 'learned', 'scholarly'. 'Book-learned' and 'bookish' connote 'ignorant of life', however much
book-learning one may possess".

The term "learned" includes several heterogeneous subdivisions of words. We find here numerous
words that are used in scientific prose and can be identified by their dry, matter-of-fact flavour (e. g.
comprise, compile, experimental, heterogeneous, homogeneous, conclusive, divergent, etc.).

To this group also belongs so-called "officialese" (cf. with the R. канцеляризмы). These are the words of
the official, bureaucratic language. E. Partridge in his dictionary Usage and Abusage gives a list of
officialese which he thinks should be avoided in speech and in print. Here are some words from
Partridge's list: assist (for help), endeavour (for try), proceed (for go), approximately (for about),
sufficient (for enough), attired (for dressed), inquire (for ask).

In the same dictionary an official letter from a Government Department is quoted which may very well
serve as a typical example of officialese. It goes: "You are authorized to acquire the work in question by
purchase through the ordinary trade channels." Which, translated into plain English, would simply
mean: "We advise you to buy the book in a shop."
Probably the most interesting subdivision of learned words is represented by the words found in
descriptive passages of fiction. These words, which may be called "literary", also have a particular
flavour of their own, usually described as "refined". They are mostly polysyllabic words drawn from the
Romance languages and, though fully adapted to the English phonetic system, some of them continue to
sound singularly foreign. They also seem to retain an aloofness associated with the lofty contexts in
which they have been used for centuries. Their very sound seems to create complex and solemn
associations. Here are some examples: solitude, sentiment, fascination, fastidiousness, facetiousness,
delusion, meditation, felicity, elusive, cordial, illusionary.

There is one further subdivision of learned words: modes of poetic diction. These stand close to the
previous group many words from which, in fact, belong to both these categories. Yet, poetic words have
a further characteristic — a lofty, high-flown, sometimes archaic, colouring:

"Alas! they had been friends in youth; But whispering tongues can poison truth

And constancy lives in realms above; And life is thorny; and youth is vain; And to be wroth with one we
love, Doth work like madness in the brain..."

Though learned words are mainly associated with the printed page, this is not exclusively so. Any
educated English-speaking individual is sure to use many learned words not only in his formal letters and
professional communication but also in his everyday speech. It is true that sometimes such uses strike a
definitely incongruous note as in the following extract:

"You should find no difficulty in obtaining a secretarial post in the city." Carel said "obtaining a post" and
not "getting a job". It was part of a bureaucratic manner which, Muriel noticed, he kept reserved for
her."

(From The Time of the Angels by I. Murdoch)

Yet, generally speaking, educated people in both modern fiction and real life use learned words quite
naturally and their speech is certainly the richer for it.

On the other hand, excessive use of learned elements in conversational speech presents grave hazards.
Utterances overloaded with such words have pretensions of "refinement" and "elegance" but achieve
the exact opposite verging on the absurd and ridiculous.

Writers use this phenomenon for stylistic purposes. When a character in a book or in a play uses too
many learned words, the obvious inappropriateness of his speech in an informal situation produces a
comic effect, When Lady Bracknell in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest recommends Jack
"to make a definite effort to produce at any rate one parent, of either sex, beforethe season is over",
the statement is funny because the seriousness and precision of the language seems comically out-of-
keeping with the informal situation.

Eliza Doolittle in Pygmalion by B. Shaw engaging in traditional English small talk answers the question
"Will it rain, do you think?" in the following way:

"The shallow depression in the west of these islands is likely to move slowly in an easterly direction.
There are no indications of any great change in the barometrical situation."

Freddie Widgeon, a silly young man in Fate by Wodehouse, trying to defend a woman whom he thinks
unduly insulted, says:

"You are aspersing a woman's name," he said.

"What?!"

"Don't attempt to evade the issue," said Freddie...

"You are aspersing a woman's name, and — what

makes it worse — you are doing it in a bowler-hat.

Take off that hat," said Freddie.

However any suggestion that learned words are suitable only for comic purposes, would be quite wrong.
It is in this vocabulary stratum that writers and poets find their most vivid paints and colours, and not
only their humorous effects.

Here is an extract from Iris Murdoch describing a summer evening:

"... A bat had noiselessly appropriated the space between, a flittering weaving almost substanceless
fragment of the invading dark. ... A collared dove groaned once in the final light. A pink rose reclining
upon the big box hedge glimmered with contained electric luminosity. A blackbird, trying to
metamorphose itself into a nightingale, began a long passionate complicated song." (From The Sacred
and Profane Love Machine by I. Murdoch)

This piece of modern prose is rich in literary words which underline its stern and reserved beauty. One
might even say that it is the selection of words which makes the description what it is: serious, devoid of
cheap sentimentality and yet charged with grave forebodings and tense expectation.

What role do learned words play in the language-learning and language-teaching process? Should they
be taught? Should they be included in the students' functional and recognition vocabularies?

As far as passive recognition is concerned, the answer is clear: without knowing some learned words, it
is even impossible to read fiction (not to mention scientific articles) or to listen to lectures delivered in
the foreign language. It is also true that some of these words should be carefully selected and
"activised" to become part of the students' functional vocabulary.

However, for teaching purposes, they should be chosen with care and introduced into the students'
speech in moderation, for, as we have seen, the excessive use of learned words may lead to absurdities.

Professional Terminology.

Hundreds of thousands of words belong to special scientific, professional or trade terminological

systems and are not used or even understood by people outside the particular speciality. Every field of
modern activity has its specialised vocabulary. There is a special medical vocabulary, and similarly
special terminologies for psychology, botany, music, linguistics, teaching methods and many others.

Term, as traditionally understood, is a word or a word-group which is specifically employed by a

particular branch of science, technology, trade or the arts to convey a concept peculiar to this particular
activity.

So, bilingual, interdental, labialization, palatalization, glottal stop, descending scale are terms of
theoretical phonetics.

There are several controversial problems in the field of terminology. The first is the puzzling question of
whether a term loses its terminological status when it comes into common usage. Today this is a
frequent occurrence, as various elements of the media of communication (TV, radio, popular magazines,
science fiction, etc.) ply people with scraps of knowledge from different scientific fields, technology and
the arts. It is quite natural that under the circumstances numerous terms pass into general usage
without losing connection with their specific fields.

There are linguists in whose opinion terms are only those words which have retained their exclusiveness
and are not known or recognised outside their specific sphere. From this point of view, words associated
with the medical sphere, such as unit ("доза лекарственного препарата"), theatre ("операционная"),
contact ("носитель инфекции") are no longer medical terms as they are in more or less common usage.
The same is certainly true about names of diseases or medicines, with the exception of some rare or
recent ones only known to medical men.

There is yet another point of view, according to which any terminological system is supposed to include
all the words and word-groups conveying concept peculiar to a particular branch of knowledge,
regardless of their exclusiveness. Modern research of various terminological systems has shown that
there is no impenetrable wall between terminology and the general language system. To the contrary,
terminologies seem to obey the same rules and laws as other vocabulary

strata. Therefore, exchange between terminological systems and the "common" vocabulary is quite
normal, and it would be wrong to regard a term as something "special" and standing apart.

Two other controversial problems deal with polysemy and synonymy.

According to some linguists, an "ideal" term should be monosemantic (i. e. it should have only one
meaning). Polysemantic terms may lead to misunderstanding, and that is a serious shortcoming in
professional communication. This requirement seems quite reasonable, yet facts of the language do not
meet it. There are, in actual fact, numerous polysemantic terms. The linguistic term semantics may
mean both the meaning of a word and the branch of lexicology studying meanings. In the terminology of
painting, the term colour may denote hue ("цвет") and, at the same time, stuff used for colouring
("краска").

The same is true about synonymy in terminological systems. There are scholars who insist that terms
should not have synonyms because, consequently, scientists and other specialists would name the same
objects and phenomena in their field by different terms and would not be able to come to any
agreement. This may be true. But, in fact, terms do possess synonyms. In painting, the same term colour
has several synonyms in both its meanings: hue, shade, tint, tinge in the first meaning ("цвет") and
paint, tint, dye in the second ("краска").

Basic vocabulary.

hese words are stylistically neutral, and, in this respect, opposed to formal and informal words described
above. Their stylistic neutrality makes it possible to use them in all kinds of situations, both formal and
informal, in verbal and written communication.

Certain of the stylistically marked vocabulary strata are, in a way, exclusive: professional terminology is
used mostly by representatives of the professions; dialects are regional; slang is favoured mostly by the
young and the uneducated. Not so basic vocabulary. These words are used every day, everywhere and
by everybody, regardless of profession, occupation, educational level, age group or geographical
location. These are words without which no human communication would be possible as they denote
objects and phenomena of everyday importance (e. g. house, bread, summer, winter, child, mother,
green, difficult, to go, to stand, etc.).

The basic vocabulary is the central group of the vocabulary, its historical foundation and living core. That
is why words of this stratum show a considerably greater stability in comparison with words of the other
strata, especially informal.

Basic vocabulary words can be recognised not only by their stylistic neutrality but, also, by entire lack of
other connotations (i. e. attendant meanings). Their meanings are broad, general and directly convey
the concept, without supplying any additional information.

For instance, the verb to walk means merely "to move from place to place on foot" whereas in the
meanings of its synonyms to stride, to stroll, to trot, to stagger and others, some additional information
is encoded as they each describe a different manner of walking, a different gait, tempo, purposefulness
or lack of purpose and even length of paces (see Ch. 10). Thus, to walk, with its direct broad meaning, is
a typical basic vocabulary word, and its synonyms, with their elaborate additional information encoded
in their meanings, belong to the periphery of the vocabulary.

The basic vocabulary and the stylistically marked strata of the vocabulary do not exist independently but
are closely interrelated. Most stylistically marked words have their neutral counterparts in the basic
vocabulary. (Terms are an exception in this respect.) On the other hand, colloquialisms may have their
counterparts among learned words, most slang has counterparts both among colloquialisms and learned
words. Archaisms, naturally, have their modern equivalents at least in some of the other groups.

The table gives some examples of such synonyms belonging to different stylistic strata.

In teaching a foreign language, the basic vocabulary words comprise the first and absolutely essential
part of the students' functional and recognition vocabularies. They constitute the beginner's vocabulary.
Yet, to restrict the student to the basic vocabulary would mean to deprive his speech of colour,
expressive force and emotive shades, for, if basic vocabulary words are absolutely necessary, they also
decidedly lack something: they are not at all the kind of words to tempt a writer or a poet. Actually, if
the language had none other but basic vocabulary words, fiction would be hardly readable, and poetry
simply non-existent.

The following table sums up the description of the stylistic strata of English vocabulary.