72. Contrastive analysis

CA grew as the result of practical demands of Language (L) – teaching methodology where it was emphatically shown that the errors made by Foreign-L. students can be often traced back to the differences in structure B/N – the target L and the L of the learner. This implies the necessity of a detailed comparison of the structure of a native and a target L which has been named CA. L scholars proceed from the assumption that the categories, elements, etc. on the sem. as well as on the syntactic and other levels are valid for both Ls. For every eord in the Mother-tongue there’s an exact equivalent in the foreign L. It’s assumed by non-Linguists. But though objective reality exists outside human beings and irrespective of the L they speak every L classifies reality on its own way by Means of Voc. Units. CA also brings to light what can be labeled problem pairs, i.e. the words that denote 2 entities in one L and correspond to 2 different words in another L. ( чаcы-clock-watch). If we abandon the primitive notion of word-for-word equivalence we can safely assume:1) that anything which can be said in 1 L can be translated into another2) that correlated polysem. Words of different Ls are as a rule not co-extensive (head of a person. Bed. Coin, match, organization) 3) the M of any Word depends on the place it occupies in the set of semantically related words – its synonyms (brave, courageous, fearless). Each W differs in certain comp. of M from the others (храбрый, отважный, бесстрашный). No member of the synonymic set can be viewed as an exact equivalent of any single member of the synonymic set in isolation.

On the lex. Level CA reveals that correlated polysem. Words are not co-extensive. Differences in the Lex. M of correlated words account for the difference of their collocability in dif. L (new potato – молодая картошка, new bread – свежий хлеб). The greatest difficulty is that the functioned words in diff. Ls are polysem. And not co-existensive (до 5, войны, угла – till 5, before war, to the corner).

CA on the gram. Level reveals that correlated words in diff. L may differ in the gram. Component of their M/ (новости, деньги – ед.ч.)

CA brings to light the essence of idiomatic English and Russian i.e. the peculiar way in which every L combines and in lex. Units.

CA deals with the use of situational verbal units. Простите – ничего! = excuse me – it’s all right, doesn’t matter.

73. THE HIERARCHIAL STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH WORDSTOCK

The sem. principles of the subdivision of the entire body of V produces a few types of Lex. Subsystems which are presented as a HS in the following ways:

1) With the view to embrace the whole wordstock the systemic analysis yields the part-of-speech properties– classification, which unites by common gram. Morph. Shaping and syntact. Functions and the common most general Lex. M which serves as the sem. basis of the whole class: thingness, action, quality.

2) In L part-of-speech Ws are manifested in a few types of LSV within definite pairs of speech which are not homogenious and allow a further subdivision on the level of separate Ms into LV classes with a common Lex. M, common paradigms, the same substituting elements ans a characteristic set of suffixes: Ns – persons, names, animal names; Vs: direct andtransitive; adjs: analitative ( through shape, colour, speed, size ), relative (through relation to another substance).

3) Sem. fields (extensive groups of Ws covering conceptual areas: abstract, relations, space)

4) LSV

5) Hyponymy

6) The sem. relationship may be based on the identity of the root element which stands out as the sem. nucleus of a whole group. As a root doesn’t reveal any lex.-gr. Categories, Ws of different parts of speech make up grouping termed sem. families or hyperlexemes: read-reader-reading. This classification is characterized by the fact that 1 sem. gr. Can comprise Ws of different roots – Ss due to numerous borrowings of Latin adj. – sun-sunny-solar.

74. SEMANTIC FIELDS, LSC –S

By the term SF we understand closely unit sectors of V-ry each characterized by a common concept. The members of the SF are not synonymous but all of them are joined together by some common sem. component. Conceptual areas covered by SF are various: abstract relations (existence, quality, order, number), space (motion, dimensions), intellect, volition, affections (moral, religious, personal).

All members of the field are semantically independent and the M of each is delimited by te M of its neighbours. There’s no vacuum between the boundaries of separate words: the end of the semantics of 1 W marks the beginning of the M of another, making up the sem. continuity of Voc. Every word is dependent on the structure of the field to which it belongs. It’s easy to bring out the dependence by comparing members of equivalent sem. fields in different Ls (hand, arm – рука, leg, foot – нога).

A further subdivision of Voc. Is made within every part of speech on the level of deeper sem. specification. Being linked by a general common component of the Ms of their members such subsystems are called LSC-s: food, furniture, fruit, terms, flowers, physical perception and mental activity. One and the same word enters a few LSC-s for 2 reasons: 1) every polysem. Word is a set of LSV, each of which refers to its own LSC. To get – to receive, to obtain, to acquire; to get – to arrive, to come, to leave; to get – to understand, to think, to consider.

2) any of the components of the M of a W may be chosen to represent the group

A doctor 1. Human being 2. Profession

1. Based on the CSC human includes man, pupil, sister, which are related in general sense.

2. Is based upon the component “prof.” and may include pianist, teacher, builder.

75. Hyponymic groups, families.

Another approach to the class of LSV-s into LSV-s is the studying of hyponymic relations between them. Hyponymy is a semantic relationship of inclusion a matter of class membership. EX.: flower includes lily, rose, daisy ect.

In this hierarchical relationship the upper term is the general classifier. It serves to describe the whole group: the lower term is a hyponym. EX.: morpheme ( root, suffix, prefix, inflex)

Hyponymic structuring has a few peculiarities

1) It may be no superior word, but only cole hyponyms

EX.: In classical Greek there’s a word to cover a variety of professions and crafts, while in English there’s none.

2) If the word is polysemantic it may appear in several places in the hierarchy being upper in one of its motions and lower in another motion.

3) Certain word may be both a classifier ( upper term) and a hyponym.

4) Hyponymic structures may vary from l-gs to l-ge

EX.: In English the word meal is a general term for a group of names

76. The Notion of a phraseological unit, its criteria.

In the system of V-ry , besides words we find another type of units traditionally called phraseological word-groups.

They clearly differ from words in structure, but similar to them in the plain of content as they contain the integral indivisible M of the whole.Besides, they are kept in memory as units which are not created on the spur of the moment, but reproduce ready-made. All this serves as the basis for including them in th body of V-ry.

Phraseology becomes a distinctly prominent field of linguistic. Learning in the middle of the 20th century and ever since it has been extensively developed. Credit for founding Phraseology goes by right to Sharl Balley who used this term for the 1st time in his book “essays on French Stylistics’ 1985.

There are 2 major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word-groups: semantic and structural. 1) The semantic shift effecting PH-s doesn’t consist in a mere change of M of each separate part of the unit. PH are characterized by semantic unity. Both words and PH’s possesses semantic unity, yet words are also characterized by structural unity which PH lack being combination of words.

2) STRUCTURAL INVARIABILITY IS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF ph-S THROUGH, SOME OF THEM POSSESS it to a lesser degree than others.

PH are characterized by 3 features:

1) STRUCTURAL STABILITY (THE SAME LEXICAL CONTENT, COMPOSITION) THE SAME WORDS

2) Ideomaticity( lacks of motivation

3) Ready-madeness ( they originate from free word-groups which are clearly motivated because as they realize their derect motions, but in tha cause of time they tend to depart from the direct picture of the word to produce a new semantic quality. They lose their inner form – motivation.

77. Vinogradov’s classification of phraseological units units ( semantic)

The 1st fundamental expiration in the field of Phaseology. It was carried out by academician of Vinogradov. He followed the Valley’s theory according to which a set expression is like to a word and is considered a W equivalent. His theory and classification is purely semantic, he grades PH into 3 classes by criterion of the degree of idiomaticity.

1) Fusions : completely idiomatic PH whose final M can’t be deduced from those of their members EX.: old bird-стреляный воробей, a new broom

2) Unitees – partially non-motivated PH perceived through the metaphoric association with the M of the basis free word Units. EX.: let the cat out of the bag, to wear one’s heart on one’s sleeve

3) Combinations – fully motivated. They don’t express a single notion, but they have specific restricted lexical collocability of components which accounts for a certain degree of stability and ensures the ready-made reproduction in speech.

EX.: To meet requirements, to pay a visit

78. Smernitsky classification of Phraseological units (functional)

A.I. Smernitky examined E. phraseological fund to take into account the structural, analytical tendencies, in W- combination patterns. As he was dominated as Balley’s conception of PH’s word equivalents he suggested a structural classification of fixed word groups into 2 types.

1) one summit PH’s includes 1 notion , part of speech.

e.g. out of the question, by heart, stand out

2) two summit PH-s

e.g. take the chair, fall in love with smb

Besides, Smernitsky suggested another classification on the semantic principle

1) Traditional phrases: rough sketch, shrug one’s shoulders

2) Phraseological combinations – they consist of one summit, two summit , polysummit units. EX.: give up, fall out of love

3) Idioms (imaginary, emotively, expressively, stylistically-coloured, perceived through the metaphoric associations. EX.: to take the bulb u the horns

79. Theory of Context by Amosova. In the 60-s Amosova made her contribution to the development of phraseological theory by suggesting the method of contextual Analysis to distinguish PH from free word- groups, to identify them.

Linguistic context is a combination of 2 elements namely of a semantically dependent unit, the word is a question and an indicator. Context represent several varieties:

-variably

-semi fixed

-traditionally-fixed

PHs are items of constant context which may be movable ( with certain changeable elements ) or immovable .

Ph are units of constant context and are a specific and unchangeable .

80. Anosova's classification of PUs.

In the 60-s N.N. Anosova made her contribution to the development of phraseological theory by suggesting the method of contexual analysis to distinguish PU from free word groups.

Linguistic context is a combination of 2 elements of a sementically dependent unit , the word in question qand an indicator(a determiner) context represents several varieties.

-variable

-semi-fixed

-traditionally-fixed(constant)

PUs are items of constant context which may be movable(with certain changeable elements)or unmovable (allowing of no variebility).

Definition of PU: PU are units of constant contextand are a specific and unchangeable sequence of lex. components and a peculiar semantic relationship.

Proceeding from her theory her classification falls into 2 types:

1-phrazemes(are units of constant context in which the dependent possesses are phraseologically bound meaning (not its direct meaning classified by the indicator which is direct) e.g. small house, to grind one's teeth

2-idioms(are units of constant context characterized by the integrated meaning of the whole in which both have lost their direct meaning)e.g. to smell the cat, hand over fist

81/82. Koonin's theory of phraseol. stability

In the 70's A.N.Koonin presented his own interpretation of the nature of PU, its basic properties and originated a peculiar classification.

His best achievement is that he developed his theory by accumulated the ideas of his predecessors. It comprises such properties of PU as peculiar meaning structure, function and context in the concept of stability. His approach to phraseology is dialectical. It makes the category of stability dialectically flexible.He identified and described PUas many-sided unitsin all totality of their features, he also considered a very important point of variability of PU's properties(lexico-semantical, morphological and syntectic which mean that they are all subjects to changeability of a certain degree)

Stability is macrostability made up of several kinds of microstability which correspond to the aspect of PU:

-usage(ready-madeness,commonness)

-meaning(demotivation, transferred meaning)

-lexical-content(the sAme words)

-morphological terms (the members are used in the same gram. forms)

-syntactic structure

His classification is functional which is based upon the part of speech meaning of the dominant word or an communicative aim

1-nominative PU:

*substantive PU( a bed of roses)

*verbal(dance of a tight rope)

*adjectival(in the long run, )

2-interjectional(dogs and cats, hear-hear!)

3-communicative(proverbs and sayings)

4-nominative-communicative(verbal pu which become sentences in the p.voice)

Adetailed functional and semantic classification primarily meant to meet the demands of lexicography is developed by Koonin in his doctoral thesis. The main classes are based on the function the unit fultfills in speech . Further subdivision into subclasses depends on whether the units are changeable or not, whether the meaning of one of the elements remains free and more generally on the independence of the meaning of the elements taken separately or set expressions.

Koonin bases his classification on a combination of functional semantic and structural features.

83. The main stzlistic lazers of eng. vocabulary.

There are 2 kinds of speech: formal and informal;according to the situation, the suitability or unsuitability of a word for each particlar situation depends on its stylistic characteristics-the functional style is represents. The situation may be formal (lectures, speech in court, official letter) and informal (informal talk, letter)\

Informal vocabulary is used in family,with friends . Informal style is relaxed, free and easy . Informal words and words-groups:1)colloquial;2)slang;3)dialect.

1-colloquialisms are used by everybody and their sphere of communication is comparatively hide at least of literary coll. words(informal words used in everybody conversationa

84. Standard English

Standard English – the official language of Great Britain taught at schools and universities, used by the press, the radio and the television, and spoken by educated people may be defined as that form of English which is correct and literary substantially uniform and recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken or understood. Its voc-ry is contracted to dialect words or dialectisms belonging to various local dialects . the literary language contains many words not to be found in dialects, among them technical and scientific terms.

1) [a i ]followed by neutral sound [ə] > [a: ] tower [t a׃] fire [f a׃]

2) [ɔ ə] > [u ə] > [ɔ׃] poor [p ɔ׃] pore[pɔ׃]

3) [æ]> [a] [h æv] > [hav] , [ænd] > [and]

4) [j] is dropped in [j + u] suit , new, but appears in [l+u] illusion [ i ‘ l ju׃Ʒn ]

5) Loss of [ h] rapid speech : I want her to come

6) Unitial [hw] which. Where

7) Loss of final [ŋ] dancing

8) Non- systematic variations often ['ɔft n] Sunday [di , dei]

85. Local Dialects

L.D. are varieties of the English language peculiar to some districts and having no normalized literary form. Regular varieties possessing a literary form are called variants. In G B there are 2 variants: Scottish, Engl and Irish eng and 5 main groups of dialects : Nortern , Midland , Eastern , western, southern. Every group contains several (up to ten) dialects.

One of the best known southern dialects is cockney. The reginal dialect of London. This dialect exists on 2 levels. As spoken by the educated , cockney differs from standard engl not only in pronunciation but alsi in vocabulary, morphology and syntax.

Cockney has attracted much literary attention , so we can judge on the evidence of literature . as recorded by dickens over a century ago, cockney was phonetically characterized by the interchange of the labial and labio-dental consonants [w] > [ v] : wery for very and vell for well. And [θ] and [ð] are replaced by [f] and [v] : fing for thing, farver for farther

Cockney is lively and witty and its voc-ry is imaginative and colorful. Its specific feature not occurring anywhere else is called rhyming slang in which some words are substituted by other words rhyming with them ( boots – daisy roots, head – a loaf of bread, wife – trouble and strife)

Dialects now are chiefly reserved in rural communities, in the speech of elderly people. Their boundaries have become less stable than they used to be, the distinctive feature are tending to disappear with the shifting of population due to the migration of working-class families in search of employment and the growing influence of urban life over the countryside. Dialects are said to undergo rapid changes under the pressure of st. eng. Taught at school and the the speech habits cultivated by radio, tv and cinema

The dialect voc-ry is remarkable for its conservatism: many words that have become obsolete in stand eng are still kept in dialects

Words from dialects and variants may generate into stand eng. Sharmrock (the national emblem of Ireland ) is a word used quite often and so is the noun . whiskey.

The contribution of the scotish dialect is very considerable ( glamour, kilt. Rapid, tartan, slogan)

A great deal in this process is due to Robert burns who wrote his poems in Scottish English, and to walter scott who introduced many Scottish words into his novels