LECTURE 1

LEXICOLOGY AS THE SCIENCE ABOUT THE WORD. DEFINITION OF THE WORD AS

THE BASIC UNIT OF ENGLISH LEXICAL SYSTEM. TYPES OF LEXICAL UNITS. BASIC
TASKS OF LEXICOLOGY

LEXICOLOGY AS THE SCIENCE ABOUT THE WORD. THE ISSUE OF THE WORD
DEFINITION

Lexicology, a branch of linguistics, is the study of words.

It is significant that many scholars have attempted to define the word as a linguistic phenomenon.
Yet none of the definitions can be considered totally satisfactory in all aspects. It is equally surprising
that, despite all the achievements of modern science, certain essential aspects of the nature of the word
still escape us. Nor do we fully understand the phenomenon called "language", of which the word is a
fundamental unit.
We know nothing — or almost nothing — about the mechanism by which a speaker's mental
process is converted into sound groups called "words", nor about the reverse process whereby a listener's
brain converts the acoustic phenomena into concepts and ideas, thus establishing a two-way process of
communication.
We know very little about the nature of relations between the word and the referent (i. e. object,
phenomenon, quality, action, etc. denoted by the word). If we assume that there is a direct relation
between the word and the referent — which seems logical — it gives rise to another question: how should
we explain the fact that the same referent is designated by quite different sound groups in different
languages.
The list of unknowns could be extended, but it is probably high time to look at the brighter side
and register some of the things we do know about the nature of the word.
First, we do know that the word is a unit of speech, which, as such, serves the purposes of human
communication. Thus, the word can be defined as a unit of communication.
Secondly, the word can be perceived as the total of the sounds, which comprise it.
Third, the word, viewed structurally, possesses several characteristics.
The modern approach to word studies is based on distinguishing between the external and the
internal structures of the word.
By external structure of the word we mean its morphological structure. For example, in the word
post-impressionists the following morphemes can be distinguished: the prefixes post-, im-, the root press,
the noun-forming suffixes -ion, -ist, and the grammatical suffix of plurality -s. All these morphemes
constitute the external structure of the word post-impressionists.
The internal structure of the word, or its meaning, is nowadays commonly referred to as the word's
semantic structure. This is certainly the word's main aspect. Words can serve the purposes of human
communication solely due to their meanings, and it is most unfortunate when this fact is ignored by some
contemporary scholars who, in their obsession with the fetish of structure tend to condemn as irrelevant
anything that eludes mathematical analysis. And this is exactly what meaning, with its subtle variations
and shifts, is apt to do.
The area of lexicology concentrated on the semantic studies of the word is called semantics.
Another structural aspect of the word is its unity. The word possesses both external (or formal)
unity and semantic unity. Formal unity of the word is sometimes inaccurately interpreted as indivisibility.
The example of post-impressionists has already shown that the word is not, strictly speaking, indivisible.
Yet, its component morphemes are permanently linked together in opposition to word-groups, both free:
bright light and those with fixed contexts, whose components possess a certain structural freedom: to take
for granted.
The formal unity of the word can best be illustrated by comparing a word and a word-group
comprising the same constituents. The difference between a blackbird and a black bird is best explained
by their relationship with the grammatical system of the language. The word blackbird, which is
characterized by unity, possesses a single grammatical framing: blackbird\s. The first constituent black is
not subject to any grammatical changes. In the word-group a black bird each constituent can acquire
grammatical forms of its own: the blackest birds I've ever seen. Other words can be inserted between the
components which is impossible so far as the word is concerned as it would violate its unity: a black
night bird.
The same example may be used to illustrate what we mean by semantic unity.
In the word-group a black bird each of the meaningful words conveys a separate concept: bird —
a kind of living creature; black — a colour.
The word blackbird conveys only one concept: the type of bird (чорний дрізд). This is one of the
main features of any word: it always conveys one concept, no matter how many component morphemes
it may have in its external structure.
A further structural feature of the word is concluded in the fact that in speech most words can be
used in different grammatical forms in which their interrelations are realized.
So far we have only singled out the word major features, but this suffices to convey the general
idea of the difficulties and questions faced by the scholar attempting to give a detailed definition of the
word. The difficulty does not merely consist in the considerable number of aspects that are to be taken
into account, but, also, in the essential unanswered questions of word theory which deal with the nature of
its meaning.
All that we have said about the word can be summed up as follows.
The word is a speech unit used for the purposes of human communication, materially
representing a group of sounds, possessing a meaning, usually subject to grammatical changes and
characterized by morphological and semantic unity.

TYPES OF LEXICAL UNITS

The term unit means one of the elements into which a whole may be divided or analyzed and
which possesses the basic properties of this whole. The unit s of a vocabulary or lexical units are two-
facet elements possessing form and meaning. The basic unit forming the bulk of the vocabulary is the
word. Other units are morphemes that is parts of words, into which words may be analyzed, and set
expressions or groups of words into which words may be combined.
Words are the central elements of language system, they face both ways: they are the biggest units
of morphology and the smallest of syntax, and what is more, they embody the main structural properties
and functions of the language. Words can be separated in an utterance by other such units and can be used
in isolation. Unlike words, morphemes cannot be divided into smaller meaningful units and are
functioning in speech only as constituent parts of words. Words are thought of as representing; integer
concept (remember the blackbird?), feeling or action or as having a single referent. The meaning of
morphemes is more abstract and more general than that of words and at the same time they are less
autonomous.
Set expressions are word groups consisting of two or more words whose combination is integrated
so that they are introduced in speech, so to say, ready-made as units with a specialized meaning of the
whole that is not understood as a mere sum total of the meanings of the elements: a bean pole (дуже
висока людина).
It is really a problem to define a lexical unit, departing form the definition of the word. For this
purpose the following types of units have been singled out.
Orthographic words are written as a sequence of letters bounded by spaces on a page. Yet, there
exist in the English vocabulary lexical units that are not identical with orthographic words but equivalent
to them. Almost any part of speech contains units indivisible either syntactically or in terms of meaning,
or both, but graphically divided. A good example is furnished by complex prepositions: along with, as far
as, in spite of, except for, due to, by means of, for the sake of, etc.
The same point may be illustrated by phrasal verbs, so numerous in English: bring up 'to educate',
call on 'to visit', make up 'to apply cosmetics', 'to reconcile after a disagreement' and some other
meanings, put off 'to postpone'. The semantic unity of these verbs is manifest in the possibility to
substitute them by orthographically single-word verbs. Though formally broken up, they function like
words and they are integrated semantically so that their meaning cannot be inferred from their constituent
elements. The same is true about phrasal verbs consisting of the verbs give, make, take and some others
used with a noun instead of its homonymous verb alone: give a smile, make a promise, take a walk (c.f. to
smile, to promise, to walk).
All these are, if not words, then at least word equivalents because they are indivisible and fulfil the
functions as words do.
To sum up: the vocabulary of a language is not homogeneous. If we view it as a kind of field, we
shall see that its bulk, its central part is formed by lexical units possessing all the distinctive features of
words, i.e. semantic, orthographic and morphological integrity as well as the capacity of being used in
speech in isolation. The marginal elements of this field reveal only some of these features, and yet belong
to this set too. Thus, phrasal verbs, complex prepositions, some compounds, phraseological units, etc. are
divided in spelling but are in all other respects equivalent to words. Morphemes, on the other hand, a
much smaller subset of the vocabulary, cannot be used as separate utterances and are less autonomous in
other respects but otherwise also function as lexical items.

TASKS OF LEXICOLOGY
Two of these have already been considered.
The first is the issue of studying the external structure of the word or word-building is concluded
in the study of prevailing morphological word-structures and in the processes of making new words.
The second, semantics, as it has already been defined, is the study of the internal word (or the
other lexical unit) structure, its meaning. Modern approaches to this problem are characterized by two
different levels of study: syntagmatic and paradigmatic.
At syntagmatic level, the semantic structure of the word is analysed in terms of its linear
relationships with neighbouring words in speech. In other words, the semantic characteristics of the word
are observed, described and studied on the basis of its typical contexts: e.g. the word smart is studied in
terms of its relationship with the following nouns. e.g. answer, Alec, preceding verb: e.g. to get, etc.
At paradigmatic level, the word is studied in its relationships with other words in the vocabulary
system. For example, a word may be studied in comparison with other words of similar meaning (e. g.
work, n. — labour, n.; to refuse, v. — to reject, v. — to decline, v.), of opposite meaning (e. g. busy, adj.
— idle, adj.; to accept, v. — to reject, v.), of different stylistic characteristics (e. g. man, n. — chap, n. —
bloke, n. — guy, n.). Consequently, the issues of paradigmatic studies are synonymy, antonymy and
functional styles.
Since a lexical unit is not only the word but also a word-group, the next group of issues is
comprised by phraseology as the branch of lexicology focused on word-groups which are characterized
by stability of structure and rendered meaning, e. g. to take the bull by the horns, to see red, birds of a
feather, etc.
One further important objective of lexicological studies is the study of the vocabulary of a
language as a system. The vocabulary can be studied synchronically, that is, at one given stage of its
development, or diachronically, that is, in its development by comparing its two different stages of
development. The latter is especially important since the vocabulary, as well as the word, which is its fun-
damental unit, is not only what it is now, at this particular stage of the language's development, but, also,
what it was centuries ago and has been throughout its history.
Yet another big issue is the regional variants of English (British, American, etc.), since vocabulary
makes the basic differences among them, reflecting specific vision of the world by different nations using,
at the first sight, the same language.
Finally, it is crucial for lexicology to reflect the stages of vocabulary development. This function
is fulfilled by its special branch, lexicography. It deals with the ways of making dictionaries of different
types.
LECTURE 2

SEMANTICS AS A SCIENCE. POLYSEMY. SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD.

TYPES OF SEMANTIC COMPONENTS. PRINCIPLES OF SEMANTIC ANALYSIS

SEMANTICS AS A SCIENCE

Language is the amber in which a thousand precious and subtle thoughts have been safely embedded and
preserved.
(From Word and Phrase by J. Fitzgerald)

As it has already been said, the internal structure of the word is its meaning or semantics.
The linguistic science at present is not able to put forward a definition of meaning which is
conclusive. However, there are certain facts of which we can be reasonably sure, and one of them is that
the very function of the word as a unit of communication is made possible by its possessing a meaning.
Therefore, among various characteristics of the word, meaning is certainly the most important.
Generally speaking, meaning can be more or less described as a component of the word through
which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with the ability of denoting real
objects, qualities, actions and abstract notions. The complex and somewhat mysterious relationships
between referent (object, etc. denoted by the word), concept and word are traditionally represented by the
following triangle [Fig. 1].
By the symbol here the word is meant; by thought or reference stands the concept. The dotted line
suggests that there is no immediate relation between the word and the referent: it is established only
through the concept: in different languages one and the same referent is designed with the help of
different signs.
The concept is a mental image of a certain object, action, phenomenon, etc., which may and may
not be implemented verbally, i.e. in the language. The mechanism by which concepts (i. e. mental phe-
nomena) are converted into words (i. e. linguistic phenomena) and the reverse process by which a heard
or a printed word is converted into a kind of mental picture are not yet understood or described.
The branch of linguistics, which deals with in the study of meaning is called semantics.
The modern approach to semantics is based on the assumption that the inner form of the word (i.
e. its meaning) presents a structure, which is called the semantic structure of the word.
Yet, before going deeper into this problem, it is necessary to make a brief survey of another
semantic phenomenon, which is closely connected with it.

POLYSEMY. SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD. PRINCIPLES OF SEMANTIC

ANALYSIS
Semantic structure of the word does not comprise an indissoluble unity (that is, actually, why it is
referred to as "structure"), nor does it necessarily stand for one concept. It is generally known that most
words implement several concepts and thus possess the corresponding number of meanings. A word
having several meanings is called polysemantic, and the ability of words to have more than one meaning
is described by the term polysemy.
Two somewhat naive but frequently asked questions may arise in connection with polysemy:
1. Is polysemy an anomaly or a general rule in English vocabulary?
2. Is polysemy an advantage or a disadvantage so far as the process of communication is concerned?
Let us deal with both these questions together.
Polysemy is certainly not an anomaly. Most English words are polysemantic. It should be noted
that the wealth of expressive resources of a language largely depends on the degree to which polysemy
has developed in the language. Sometimes it is claimed that a language lacks words if the need arises for
the same word to name different phenomena. Actually, it is exactly the opposite: if each word is found to
be capable of conveying at least two concepts instead of one, the expressive potential of the whole
vocabulary increases twofold. Hence, a well-developed polysemy is not a drawback but a great advantage
in a language.
 On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the number of sound combinations that human
speech organs can produce is limited. Therefore at a certain stage of language development the
production of new words by morphological means becomes limited, and polysemy becomes increasingly
important in providing the means for enriching the vocabulary. Hence, the process of enriching the
vocabulary does not consist merely in adding new words to it, but, also, in the constant development of
polysemy.
The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over the centuries,
as more and more new meanings are either added to old ones, or oust some of them. So the complicated
processes of polysemy development involve both the appearance of new meanings and the loss of old
ones. Yet, the general tendency with English vocabulary at the modern stage of its history is to increase
the total number of its meanings and in this way to provide for a quantitative and qualitative growth of the
language expressive resources.
When analysing the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish
between two levels of analysis.
At the first level semantic structure of a word is treated as a system of meanings. For example,
semantic structure of the noun fire could be roughly presented by this scheme (only the most frequent
meanings are given) [Fig.2].
The above scheme suggests that meaning I holds a kind of dominance over the other meanings
conveying the concept in the most general way whereas meanings II—V are associated with special
circumstances, aspects and instances of the same phenomenon.
Meaning I (generally referred to as the main meaning) presents the centre of the semantic structure
of the word holding it together. It is mainly through meaning I that meanings II—V (they are called
secondary meanings) can be associated with one another, some of them exclusively through meaning I,
as, for instance, meanings IV and V.
It would hardly be possible to establish any logical associations between some of the meanings of
the noun bar except through the main meaning. (Only a fragment of the semantic structure of bar is
presented so as to illustrate the point) [Fig.3].
Meanings II and III have no logical links with one another whereas each separately is easily
associated with meaning I: meaning II due to the traditional barrier dividing a court-room into two parts;
meaning III due to the counter serving as a kind of barrier between the customers of a pub and the
barman.
Yet, it is not in every polysemantic word where such a centre can be found. Some semantic
structures are arranged according to a different principle. In the following list of meanings of the adjective
dull one can hardly hope to find a generalized meaning covering and folding together the rest of the
semantic structure [Fig.4].
One distinctly feels, however, that there is something that all these seemingly miscellaneous
meanings have in common, and that is the implication of deficiency, be it of colour (m. III), wits (m. II),
interest (m. I), sharpness (m. V), etc. The implication of insufficient quality, of something lacking, can be
clearly distinguished in each separate meaning.
In fact, each explanation of the meaning in the given scheme can be transformed to prove the
point [Fig.5]. The transformed scheme of the semantic structure of dull clearly shows that the centre
holding together the complex semantic structure of this word is not one of the meanings but a certain
component that can be easily singled out within each separate meaning.
This brings us to the second level of analysis of the semantic structure of a word. The
transformational operation with the meaning definitions of dull reveals something very significant: the
semantic structure of the word is "divisible", as it were, not only at the level of different meanings but,
also, at a deeper level.
Each separate meaning seems to be subject to structural analysis in which it may be represented as
sets of semantic components. In terms of componential analysis, one of the modern methods of semantic
research, the meaning of a word is defined as a set of elements of meaning (semes) which are not part of
the vocabulary of the language itself. The basic quality of a seme is an ability to combine in various ways
with other similar elements (semes) in the meaning of different words: seme ‘inferior’ pay be present not
only in the meanings of the word dull but also in that of other words: bonehead (vulg.)
 Thus, the scheme of the semantic structure of dull shows that the semantic structure of a word is
not a mere system of meanings, for each separate meaning is subject to further subdivision and possesses
an inner structure of its own.
Therefore, the semantic structure of a word should be investigated at both these levels: a) of
different meanings, b) of semantic components within each separate meaning. For a monosemantic word
(i. e. a word with one meaning) the first level is naturally excluded.

TYPES OF SEMANTIC COMPONENTS

The leading semantic component in the semantic structure of a word is usually termed denotative
component (also, the term referential component may be used). The denotative component expresses the
conceptual content of a word. It conceptualizes and classifies our experience, that is designates that a
certain named phenomenon refers to this or that class of objects.
The following list presents denotative components of some English adjectives and verbs. [Fig.6].
It is quite obvious that the definitions given in the right column only partially and incompletely
describe the meanings of their corresponding words. To give a more or less full picture of the meaning of
a word, it is necessary to include in the scheme of analysis an additional semantic component, which is
called connotation or connotative component. Connotation may be defined as pragmatic communicative
value the word receives by virtue of where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what context it
is or may be used.
Look at the complete semantic structures of the words given above introducing connotative
components into the schemes of their semantic structures [Fig.7]. The examples show how by singling out
denotative and connotative components one can get a sufficiently clear picture of what the word really
means. The schemes presenting the semantic structures of glare, shiver, shudder also show that a
meaning can have two or more connotative components.
Connotative components are classified into stylistic (poetic, learned, vulgar, etc.): stupid, fool,
bonehead, retarded; emotional or affective: aggravate – spoil, kill; evaluative: patriot – nationalist;
ideological: communist.

MEANING AND CONTEXT

Discussing polysemy we touched upon the advantages and disadvantages of this linguistic
phenomenon. One of the most important "drawbacks" of polysemantic words is that there is sometimes
danger of misunderstanding when the word is used in one meaning but understood by the listener or
reader in another. It is only natural that such cases provide stuff for jokes like the following:
Customer. I would like a book, please.
Bookseller. Something light?
Customer. That doesn't matter. I have my car with me.
In this conversation the customer is honestly misled by the polysemy of the adjective light taking
it in the literal sense whereas the bookseller uses the word in its figurative meaning "not serious;
entertaining".
In the following joke one of the speakers pretends to misunderstand his interlocutor motivating his
angry retort by the polysemy of the noun kick:
The critic started to leave in the middle of the second act of the play.
"Don't go," said the manager. "I promise there's a terrific kick in the next act."
"Fine," was the retort, "give it to the author."
Generally speaking, it is common knowledge that context is a powerful preventative against any
misunderstanding of meanings. For instance, the adjective dull, if used out of context, would mean
different things to different people or nothing at all. It is only in combination with other words that it
reveals its actual meaning: a dull pupil, a dull play, a dull razor-blade, dull weather, etc. Sometimes,
however, such a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word, and it may be correctly
interpreted only through what Professor N. Amosova termed a second-degree context, as in the following
example: The man was large, but his wife was even fatter. The word fatter here serves as a kind of
indicator pointing that large describes a stout man and not a tall one.
 These observations give ground for so called contextual analysis, which concentrates on
determining the minimal stretch of speech and the conditions necessary and sufficient to reveal in which
of its individual meaning the word in question is used.
LECTURE 3

MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD.

MORPHEME. TYPOLOGY OF MORPHEMES. FREE AND BOUND FORMS. WORD
FAMILIES. MORPHOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY OF WORDS. ANALYSIS INTO IMMEDIATE
CONSTITUENTS

MORPHEME

If we describe a word as an autonomous unit of language in which a particular meaning is

associated with a particular sound complex and which is capable of a particular grammatical employment
and able to form a sentence by itself (see its definition in Lecture 1), we have the possibility to distinguish
it from the other fundamental language unit, namely, the morpheme.
A morpheme is also an association of a given meaning with a given sound pattern. But it has two
features which differ it from a word: 1) unlike a word it is not autonomous. Morphemes occur in speech
only as constituent parts of words, not independently, although a word may consist of a single morpheme.
2) it is not divisible into smaller meaningful units. That is why the morpheme may be defined as the
minimal meaningful language unit.
The term morpheme is derived from Old German morphe 'form' + -eme. The Greek suffix -eme
has been adopted by linguists to denote the smallest significant unit. The morpheme is the smallest
meaningful unit of form. A form here means a recurring (which is used widely) discrete unit of speech.

TYPOLOGY OF MORPHEMES. DERIVATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL AFFIXES. FREE AND

BOUND FORMS

A form is said to be free if it may stand alone without changing its meaning; if not, it is a bound
form, so called because it is always bound to something else. For example, if we compare the words
sportive and elegant and their parts, we see that sport, sportive, elegant may occur alone as utterances,
whereas eleg-, -ive, -ant are bound forms because they never occur alone. A morpheme therefore is either
bound or free.
This statement should be taken with caution. It means that some morphemes are capable of
forming words without adding other morphemes: that is, they are just homonymous to free forms.
According to the role they play in constructing words, morphemes are subdivided into roots and
affixes. The latter are further subdivided, according to their position, into prefixes, suffixes and infixes,
and according to their function and meaning, into derivational and functional affixes, the latter also called
endings or outer formatives. Here the term ‘derivational’ needs explanation: derivation is the process of
forming a new word or a stem.
Besides the types of morphemes enumerated above lexiclogists widely use another term, which
helps in the analysis of the word structure. It is a stem. We will start considering the word structure with
it.
When a derivational or functional affix is stripped from the word, what remains is a stem (or a
stem base). The stem expresses the lexical and the part of speech meaning. For the word hearty and for
the paradigm heart (sing.) — hearts (pl.) the stem may be represented as heart-. This stem is a single
morpheme, it contains nothing but the root, so it is a simple stem. It is also a free stem because it is
homonymous to the word heart.
A stem may also be defined as the part of the word that remains unchanged throughout its
paradigm (changes of grammatical forms). The stem of the paradigm hearty — heartier — (the) heartiest
is hearty-. It is a free stem, but as it consists of a root morpheme and an affix, it is not simple but derived.
Thus, a stem containing one or more affixes is a derived stem. If after deducing the affix the remaining
stem is not homonymous to a separate word of the same root, we call it a bound stem. Thus, in the word
cordial 'proceeding as if from the heart', the adjective-forming suffix can be separated on the analogy
with such words as bronchial, radial, social. The remaining stem, however, cannot form a separate word
by itself, it is bound. In cordially and cordiality, on the other hand, the derived stems are free.
 Bound stems are especially characteristic of loan words. The point may be illustrated by the
following French borrowings: arrogance, charity, courage, coward, distort, involve, notion, legible and
tolerable, to give but a few. After the affixes of these words are taken away the remaining elements are:
arrog-, char-, cour-, cow-, -tort, -volve, not-, leg-, toler-, which do not coincide with any independent
words.
Roots are main morphemic vehicles of a given idea in a given language at a given stage of its
development. A root may be also regarded as 1) the ultimate constituent element, which remains after the
removal of all functional and derivational affixes and 2) does not admit any further analysis.
Quality (2) differs it from the stem. The root is the common element of words within a word-
family whereas the stem changes from word to word depending on its structure.
Thus, -heart- is the common root of the following series of words: heart, hearten, dishearten,
heartily, heartless, hearty, heartiness, sweetheart, heart-broken, kind-hearted, whole-heartedly, etc. In
some of these, as, for example, in hearten, there is only one root; in others the root -heart is combined
with some other root, thus forming a compound like sweetheart.
The root word heart is unsegmentable (cannot be divided in further structural parts), it is non-
motivated morphologically.
It will at once be noticed that the root in English is very often homonymous with the word. This
fact is of fundamental importance as it is one of the most specific features of the English language arising
from its general grammatical system on the one hand, and from its phonemic system on the other. The
influence of the analytical structure of the language is obvious. The second point, however, calls for some
explanation. Actually the usual phonemic shape most favoured in English is one single stressed syllable:
bear, find, jump, land, man, sing, etc.
This does not give much space for a second morpheme to add classifying lexico-grammatical
meaning to the lexical meaning already present in the root-stem, so the lexico-grammatical meaning must
be signalled by distribution (preceding and following words in the text). For example, the words drive,
ride and walk from the first sight may be defined as verbs but in the phrases a morning's drive, a
morning's ride, a morning's walk they receive the lexico-grammatical meaning of a noun not due to the
structure of their stems, but because they are preceded by a genitive.
Unlike roots, affixes are always bound forms. The difference between suffixes and prefixes, it will
be remembered, is not confined to their position after or before the stem: suffixes being "fixed after" and
prefixes "fixed before". It is also connected with their function and meaning.
A suffix is a derivational morpheme following the stem and forming a new derivative in a different
part of speech or a different word class, c f. -en, -y, -less in hearten, hearty, heartless. When both the un-
derlying and the resultant forms belong to the same part of speech, the suffix serves to differentiate
between lexico-grammatical classes by rendering some very general lexico-grammatical meaning. For
instance, both -ify and -er are verb suffixes, but the first characterizes causative verbs, such as horrify,
purify, rarefy, simplify, whereas the second is mostly typical of frequentative verbs: flicker, shimmer,
twitter and the like.
If we realize that suffixes render the most general semantic component of the word's lexical
meaning by marking the general class of phenomena to which the referent of the word belongs, the reason
why suffixes are as a rule semantically fused with the stem stands explained.
A prefix is a derivational morpheme standing before the root and modifying meaning, c f. hearten
— dishearten. It is only with verbs and statives that a prefix may serve to distinguish one part of speech
from another, like in earth n — unearth v, sleep n — asleep (stative).
It is interesting that as a prefix en- may carry the same meaning of being or bringing into a certain
state as the suffix -en, c.f.: enable, encamp, endanger, endear, enslave and fasten, darken, deepen,
lengthen, strengthen.
Preceding a verb stem, some prefixes express the difference between a transitive and an
intransitive verb: stay v and outstay (sb) vt. With a few exceptions prefixes modify the stem for time
(pre-, post-): post-Soviet, pre-revolutionary, place (in-, ad-): inborn, in-box, adhere or negation (un-,
dis-): uninteresting, dissatisfy and remain semantically rather independent of the stem.
An infix is an affix placed within the word, like -n- in stand. The type is not productive.
 An affix should not be confused with a combining form. A combining form is also a bound form
but it can be distinguished from an affix historically by the fact that it is always borrowed from another
language, namely, from Latin or Greek, in which it existed as a free form, i.e. a separate word, or also as a
combining form. They differ from all other borrowings in that they occur in compounds and derivatives
that did not exist in their original language but were formed only in modern times in English, Russian,
French, etc., c f. polyclinic, polymer; stereophonic, stereoscopic, telemechanics, television. Combining
forms are mostly international. Descriptively a combining form differs from an affix, because it can occur
as one constituent of a form whose only other constituent is an affix, as in graphic, cyclic.
Also affixes are characterized either by preposition with respect to the root (prefixes) or by
postposition (suffixes), whereas the same combining form may occur in both positions. C f. phonograph,
phonology and telephone, microphone, etc.

WORD FAMILIES. MORPHOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY OF WORDS

Among morphemes, the root stays a key element forming word families. So, as it has been
mentioned, it is the common element of words within a word-family. Thus, -heart- is the common root of
the following series of words: heart, hearten, dishearten, heartily, heartless, hearty, heartiness,
sweetheart, heart-broken, kind-hearted, whole-heartedly, etc.
The root word heart is unsegmentable. The morphemic structure of all the other words in this
word-family is obvious — they are segmentable as consisting of at least two distinct morphemes. They
may be further subdivided into: 1) those formed by affixation or affixational derivatives consisting of a
root morpheme and one or more affixes: hearten, dishearten, heartily, heartless, hearty, heartiness; 2)
compounds, in which two, or very rarely more, stems simple or derived are combined into a lexical unit:
sweetheart, heart-shaped, heart-broken or 3) derivational compounds where words of a phrase are joined
together by composition and affixation: kind-hearted. This last process is also called phrasal derivation
((kind heart) + -ed)).

ANALYSIS INTO IMMEDIATE CONSTITUENTS

A synchronic morphological analysis is most effectively accomplished by the procedure known as

the analysis into immediate constituents (IC's). Immediate constituents are any of two meaningful parts
forming a larger linguistic unity. The main opposition dealt with is the opposition of stem and affix. It is a
kind of segmentation revealing not the history of the word but its m o t i v a t i o n, i.e. the data the
listener has to go by in understanding it.
The method is based on the fact that a word characterized by morphological divisibility
(analysable into morphemes) is involved in certain structural correlations.
A sample analysis which has become almost classical, being repeated many times by many
authors, is L. Bloomfield's analysis of the word ungentlemanly. As the word is convenient we take the
same example. Comparing this word with other utterances the listener recognizes the morpheme -un- as a
negative prefix because he has often come across words built on the pattern un- + adjective stem:
uncertain, unconscious, uneasy, unfortunate, unmistakable, unnatural. One can also come across the
adjective gentlemanly. Thus, at the first cut we obtain the following immediate constituents: un- +
gentlemanly. If we continue our analysis, we see that although gent occurs as a free form in low
colloquial usage, no such word as lemanly may be found either as a free or as a bound constituent, so this
time we have to separate the final morpheme. We are justified in so doing as there are many adjectives
following the pattern noun stem + -ly, such as womanly, masterly, scholarly, soldierly with the same se-
mantic relationship of 'having the quality of the person denoted by the stem'; we also have come across
the noun gentleman in other utterances. The two first stages of analysis resulted in separating a free and a
bound form: 1) un- + gentlemanly, 2) gentleman-+ -ly. The third cut has its peculiarities. The division
into gent- + -leman is obviously impossible as no such patterns exist in English, so the cut is gentle- +
-man. A similar pattern is observed in nobleman, and so we state adjective stem + man. The word gentle
is open to discussion. It is obviously divisible from the etymological viewpoint: gentle < (O)Fr
gentil<Lat genii Us permits to discern the root or rather the radical element gent- and the suffix -il. But
since we are only concerned with synchronic analysis this division is not relevant.
If, however, we compare the adjective gentle with such adjectives as brittle, fertile, fickle,
juvenile, little, noble, subtle and some more centaining the suffix -le/-ile added to a bound stem, they form
a pattern for our case. The bound stem that remains is present in the following group: gentle, gently,
gentleness, genteel, gentile, gentry, etc.
One might observe that our procedure of looking for similar utterances has shown that the English
vocabulary contains the vulgar word gent that has been mentioned above, meaning 'a person pretending to
the status of a gentleman' or simply 'man', but then there is no such structure as noun stem + -le, so the
word gent should be interpreted as a shortening of gentleman and a homonym of the bound stem in ques-
tion.
To sum up: as we break the word we obtain at any level only two IC's, one of which is the stem of
the given word. All the time the analysis is based on the patterns characteristic of the English vocabulary.
As a pattern showing the interdependence of all the constituents segregated at various stages we obtain
the following formula:
un- + {[(gent- + -le) + -man] + -ly}
Breaking a word into its immediate constituents we observe in each cut the structural order of the
constituents (which may differ from their actual sequence). Furthermore we shall obtain only two
constituents at each cut, the ultimate constituents, however, can be arranged according to their sequence
in the word: un+-gent-+-le+-man+-ly.
LECTURE 4

TYPES OF WORD BUILDING. DERIVATION (AFFIXATION). WORD-BUILDING

PATTERNS.

TYPES OF WORD BUILDING

Besides affixation (derivation), which has been considered by and large, there are the following types of
word-building: conversion (water n – water v), composition (early-riser, evildoer), contraction
(shortening) (coke : : coca-cola; flu : : influenza), onomatopoeia (cock-doodle-doo, wham, crack),
reduplication (walkie-talkie), and reversion (beggar – to beg).

DERIVATION (AFFIXATION)
The process of affixation consists in coining a new word by adding an affix or several affixes to
some root morpheme. The role of the affix in this procedure is very important and therefore it is necessary
to consider certain facts about the main types of affixes.
Affixes can be classified according to their etymology (origin), productivity (ability to create new
forms at a certain period) and semantics.
From the etymological point of view affixes are classified into the same two large groups as
words: native and borrowed.

Some Native Suffixes

-er worker, miner, teacher, painter, etc.

Noun-forming

-ness coldness, loneliness, loveliness, etc.

-ing feeling, meaning, singing, reading, etc.

-dom freedom, wisdom, kingdom, etc.

-hood childhood, manhood, motherhood, etc.

-ship friendship, companionship, mastership, etc.

-th length, breadth, health, truth, etc.

-ful careful, joyful, wonderful, sinful, skilful, etc.

Adjective-forming

-less careless, sleepless, cloudless, senseless, etc.

-y cozy, tidy, merry, snowy, showy, etc.

-ish English, Spanish, reddish, childish, etc.

-ly lonely, lovely, ugly, likely, lordly, etc.

-en wooden, woollen, silken, golden, etc.

-some handsome, quarrelsome, tiresome, etc.

Verb- -en widen, redden, darken, sadden, etc.
forming
Adverb- -ly warmly, hardly, simply, carefully, coldly, etc.
forming

Borrowed affixes, especially of Romance origin are numerous in the English vocabulary. It would be
wrong, though, to suppose that affixes are borrowed in the same way and for the same reasons as words.
An affix of foreign origin can be regarded as borrowed only after it has begun an independent and active
life in the recipient language, that is, is taking part in the word-making processes of that language. This
can only occur when the total of words with this affix is so great in the recipient language as to affect the
native speakers' subconsciousness to the extent that they no longer realize its foreign flavour and accept it
as their own.
In terms of productivity, affixes can also be classified into productive and non-productive types.
By productive affixes we mean the ones, which take part in deriving new words in this particular period
of language development. The best way to identify productive affixes is to look for them among
neologisms and so-called nonce-words, i.e. words coined and used only for this particular occasion. The
latter are usually formed at the level of living speech and reflect the most productive and progressive
patterns in word-building. When a literary critic writes about a certain book that it is an unputdownable
thriller, we will seek in vain this strange and impressive adjective in dictionaries, for it is a nonce-word
coined on the current pattern of Modern English and is evidence of the high productivity of the adjec tive-
forming borrowed suffix -able and the native prefix un-.
Consider, for example, the following:
Professor Pringle was a thinnish, baldish, sad-lookingish cove with an eye like a snake.
The adjectives thinnish and baldish bring to mind dozens of other adjectives made with the same
suffix: oldish, youngish, mannish, girlish, fattish, longish, yellowish, etc. But sad-lookingish is the
author's creation aimed at a humorous effect, and, at the same time, proving beyond doubt that the suffix
-ish is a live and active one.
The same is well illustrated by the following popular statement: "I don't like Sunday evenings: I
feel so Mondayish". (Mondayish is certainly a nonce-word.)
One should not confuse the productivity of affixes with their frequency of occurrence. There are
quite a number of high-frequency affixes, which, nevertheless, are no longer used in word-derivation (e.
g. the adjective-forming native suffixes -ful, -ly; the adjective-forming suffixes of Latin origin -ant, -ent,
-al which are quite frequent).

Some Productive Affixes

Noun-forming suffixes -er, -ing, -ness, -ism (materialism), -ist (impressionist), -ance

Adjective-forming suffixes -y, -ish, -ed (learned), -able, -less

Adverb-forming suffixes -ly

Verb-forming suffixes -ize/-ise (realize), -ate

Prefixes un- (unhappy), re- (reconstruct), dis- (disappoint)

Some Non-Productive Affixes

Noun-forming suffixes -th, -hood

Adjective-forming suffixes -ly, -some, -en, -ous

Verb-forming suffix -en

SEMANTICS OF AFFIXES

The morpheme, and therefore affix, which is a type of morpheme, is generally defined as the
smallest indivisible component of the word possessing a meaning of its own. Meanings of affixes are
specific and considerably differ from those of root morphemes. Affixes have widely generalized
meanings and refer the concept conveyed by the whole word to a certain category, which is vast and all-
embracing. So, the noun-forming suffix -er could be roughly defined as designating persons from the
object of their occupation or labour (painter — the one who paints) or from their place of origin or abode
(southerner — the one living in the South). The adjective-forming suffix -ful has the meaning of "full of",
"characterized by" (beautiful, careful) whereas -ish may often imply insufficiency of quality (greenish —
green, but not quite; youngish — not quite young but looking it).
Such examples might lead one to the somewhat superficial conclusion that the meaning of a
derived word is always a sum of the meanings of its morphemes: un/eat/able = "not fit to eat" where not
stands for un- and fit for -able.
There are numerous derived words whose meanings can really be easily guessed from the
meanings of their constituent parts. Yet, such cases represent only the first and simplest stage of semantic
readjustment within derived words. The constituent morphemes within derivatives do not always preserve
their current meanings and are open to subtle and complicated semantic shifts.
Let us take at random some of the adjectives formed with the same productive suffix -y, and try to deduce
the meaning of the suffix from their dictionary definitions:
brainy (inform.) — intelligent, intellectual, i. e. characterized by brains
catty — quietly or slyly malicious, spiteful, i. e. characterized by features ascribed to a cat
chatty — given to chat, inclined to chat
dressy (inform.) — showy in dress, i. e. inclined to dress well or to be overdressed
fishy (e. g. in a fishy story, inform.) — improbable, hard to believe (like stories told by fishermen)
foxy— foxlike, cunning or crafty, i. e. characterized by features ascribed to a fox
stagy — theatrical, unnatural, i. e. inclined to affectation, to unnatural theatrical manners
touchy — apt to take offence on slight provocation, i. e. resenting a touch or contact (not at all inclined to
be touched).
The Random-House Dictionary defines the meaning of the -y suffix as "characterized by or
inclined to the substance or action of the root to which the affix is attached". Yet, even the few given
examples show that, on the one hand, there are cases, like touchy or fishy that are not covered by the
definition. On the other hand, even those cases that are roughly covered, show a wide variety of subtle
shades of meaning. It is not only the suffix that adds its own meaning to the meaning of the root, but the
suffix is, in its turn, affected by the root and undergoes certain semantic changes, so that the mutual
influence of root and affix creates a wide range of subtle nuances.
The semantic distinctions of words produced from the same root by means of different affixes are
also of considerable interest, both for language studies and research work. Compare: womanly —
womanish, flowery — flowered — flowering, starry — starred, reddened — reddish, shortened —
shortish.
The semantic difference between the members of these groups is very obvious: the meanings of
the suffixes are so distinct that they colour the whole words.
Womanly is used in a complimentary manner about girls and women, whereas womanish is used
to indicate an effeminate man and certainly implies criticism.
Flowery is applied to speech or a style, flowered means "decorated with a pattern of flowers" (e. g.
flowered silk or chintz, flowering is the same as blossoming (e. g. flowering bushes or shrubs).
 Starry means "resembling stars" (e. g. starry eyes) and starred — "covered or decorated with
stars" (e. g. starred shies).
Reddened and shortened both imply the result of an action or process, as in the eyes reddened
with weeping or a shortened version of a story (i. e. a story that has been abridged) whereas shortish and
reddish point to insufficiency of quality: reddish is not exactly red, but tinged with red, and a shortish
man is probably a little taller than a man described as short.

WORD-BUILDING PATTERNS

The term word-building or derivational pattern is used to denote a meaningful combination of

stems and affixes that occur regularly enough to indicate the part of speech, the lexico-semantic category
and semantic peculiarities common to most words with this particular arrangement of morphemes. Every
type of word-building (affixation, composition, conversion, compositional derivation, shortening, etc.) as
well as every part of speech has a characteristic set of patterns. The grouping of patterns is possible
according to 1) the type of stem, 2) the affix or 3) semantics.
Let us turn again to affixation and see how the dictionary defines words with the prefix un-:
unaccented a—without an accent or stress unbolt v — to remove the bolt of, to unlock unconcern n —
lack of concern undo v — to reverse the effect of doing, unfailing a — not failing, constant.
These few examples show that the negative prefix un- may be used in the following patterns:

Word-building patterns for the prefix -un

No Pattern Meaning Examples

.
I. un- + an adjective stem uncertain, unfair,
unbelievable, un-
with the meaning 'not',
conscious
'without', 'the opposite
un- + Part. I stem unbecoming
of'
un- + Part. II stem unbalanced, unknown,
unborn
II. un- + a verbal stem to reverse the action as unbend, unbind,
the effect of... unpack, unwrap
III. un- + a verbal stem to release from unhook, unpack, unlock,
unearth
IV. un- + a noun stem (rare) absence of the assigned unpeople 'people
quality lacking the semblance
of humanity', unperson
'a public figure who has
lost his influence'.

These cases of semantic overlapping show that the meaning or rather the variety of meanings of
each derivational affix can be established only when we collect many cases of its use and then observe its
functioning within the structure of the word-building patterns deduced from the examples collected. It
would be also wrong to say that there exists a definite meaning associated with this or that pattern, as they
are often polysemantic, and the affixes homonymous. This may be also seen from the following
examples.
The more productive an affix is the more probable the existence alongside the usual pattern of
some semantic variation. Thus, -ee is freely added to verbal stems to form nouns meaning 'One who is V-
ed', as addressee, divorcee, employee, evacuee, examinee, often paralleling agent nouns in -er, as
employer, examiner. Sometimes, however, it is added to intransitive verbs; in these cases the pattern V+
-ee means 'One who V-s' or 'One who has V-ed', as in escapee, retiree. In the case of bargee 'a man in
charge of a barge' the stem is a noun.
It may also happen that due to the homonymy of affixes words that look like antonyms are in fact
synonyms. The adjectives inflammable and flammable are not antonyms as might be supposed from their
morphological appearance (c.f. informal : : formal, inhospitable : : hospitable) but synonyms, because
inflammable is 'easily set on fire'. They are also interchangeable in non-technical texts. Inflammable may
be used figuratively as 'easily excited'. Flammable is preferred in technology.
The fact is that there are two prefixes in-. One is a negative prefix and the other may indicate an
inward motion, an intensive action or as in the case of inflame, inflammable and inflammation have a
causative function.
To sum up: the word-building pattern is a structural and semantic formula more or less regularly
reproduced, it reveals the morphological motivation of the word, the grammatical part-of-speech meaning
and in most cases helps to refer the word to some lexico-grammatical class, the components of the lexical
meaning are mostly supplied by the stem.
LECTURE 5

CONVERSION AND OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF WORD-BUILDING. SHORTENING

CONVERSION

When in a book-review a book is referred to as a splendid read, is read to be regarded as a verb or

a noun? What part of speech is room in the sentence: I was to room with another girl called Jessie. If a
character in a novel is spoken about as one who had to be satisfied with the role of a has-been, what is
this odd-looking has-been, a verb or a noun? One must admit that it has quite a verbal appearance, but
why, then, is it preceded by the article?
This type of questions naturally arise when one deals with words produced by conversion, one of
the most productive ways of modern English word-building.
Conversion is sometimes referred to as an affixless way of word-building or even affixless
derivation. Saying that, however, is saying very little because there are other types of word-building in
which new words are also formed without affixes (most compounds, contracted words, sound-imitation
words, etc.).
Conversion consists in making a new word from some existing word by changing the category of
a part of speech, the morphemic shape of the original word remaining unchanged. The new word has a
meaning, which differs from that of the original one though it can more or less be easily associated with
it. It has also a new paradigm peculiar to its new category as a part of speech.

nurse, n.
Substantive paradigm Verbal paradigm

-s, pl. to nurse, v

-'s, poss. c., sg. -s, 3rd p. sg.
-s', poss. c., pl -cd, past indef., past part.
-ing,, pres. part., gerund

The question of conversion has, for a long time, been a controversial one in several aspects. The
very essence of this process has been treated by a number of scholars (e. g. H. Sweet), not as a word-
building act, but as a mere functional change. From this point of view the word hand in Hand me that
book is not a verb; but a noun used in a verbal syntactical function, that is, hand (me) and hands (in She
has small hands) are not two different words but one. Hence, the case cannot be treated as one of word-
formation for no new word appears.
According to this functional approach, conversion may be regarded as a specific feature of the
English categories of parts of speech, which are supposed to be able to break through the rigid borderlines
dividing one category from another thus enriching the process of communication not by the creation of
new words but through the sheer flexibility of the syntactic structures.
Nowadays this theory finds increasingly fewer supporters, and conversion is universally accepted
as one of the major ways of enriching English vocabulary with new words. One of the major arguments
for this approach to conversion is the semantic change that regularly accompanies each instance of
conversion. Normally, a word changes its syntactic function without any shift in lexical meaning. E. g.
both in yellow leaves and in The leaves were turning yellow the adjective denotes colour. Yet, in The
leaves yellowed the converted unit no longer denotes colour, but the process of changing colour, so that
there is an essential change in meaning.
The change of meaning is even more obvious in such pairs as hand > to hand, face > to face, to
go > a go, to make > a make, etc.
 The other argument is the regularity and completeness with which converted units develop a
paradigm of their new category of part of speech. As soon as it has crossed the category borderline, the
new word automatically acquires all the properties of the new category, so that if it has entered the verb
category, it is now regularly used in all the forms of tense and it also develops the forms of the participle
and the gerund. Such regularity can hardly be regarded as indicating a mere functional change, which
might be expected to bear more occasional characteristics. The completeness of the paradigms in new
conversion formations seems to be a decisive argument proving that here we are dealing with new words
and not with mere functional variants. The data of the more reputable modern English dictionaries
confirm this point of view: they all present converted pairs as homonyms, i. e. as two words, thus
supporting the thesis that conversion is a word-building process.
Conversion is not only a highly productive but also a particularly English way of word-building.
Its immense productivity is considerably encouraged by certain features of the English language in its
modern stage of development. The analytical structure of Modern English greatly facilitates processes of
making words of one category of parts of speech from words of another. So does the simplicity of
paradigms of English parts of speech. A great number of one-syllable words is another factor in favour of
conversion, for such words are naturally more mobile and flexible than polysyllables.
Conversion is a convenient and "easy" way of enriching the vocabulary with new words. It is
certainly an advantage to have two (or more) words where there was one, all of them fixed on the same
structural and semantic base.
The high productivity of conversion finds its reflection in speech where numerous occasional
cases of conversion can be found, which are not registered by dictionaries and which occur momentarily,
through the immediate need of the situation. "If anybody oranges me again tonight, I'll knock his face
off", says the annoyed hero of a story by O'Henry when a shop-assistant offers him oranges (for the tenth
time in one night) instead of peaches for which he is looking ("Little Speck in Garnered Fruit"). One is
not likely to find the verb to orange in any dictionary, but in this situation it answers the need for brevity,
expressiveness and humour.
The very first example, which opens the section on conversion in this chapter (the book is a
splendid read), though taken from a book-review, is a nonce-word, which may be used by reviewers now
and then or in informal verbal communication, but has not yet found its way into the universally
acknowledged English vocabulary.
Such examples as these show that conversion is a vital and developing process that penetrates
contemporary speech as well. Subconsciously every English speaker realizes the immense potentiality of
making a word into another part of speech when the need arises.
* * *
One should guard against thinking that every case of noun and verb (verb and adjective, adjective
and noun, etc.) with the same morphemic shape results from conversion. There are numerous pairs of
words (e. g. love, n. — to love, v.; work, n. — to work, v.; drink, n. — to drink, v., etc.) which did not
occur due to conversion but coincided as a result of certain historical processes (dropping of endings,
simplification of stems) when before that they had different forms (e. g. O. E. lufu, n. — lufian, v.). On
the other hand, it is quite true that the first cases of conversion (which were registered in the 14th c.)
imitated such pairs of words as love, n. — to love, v. for they were numerous in the vocabulary and were
subconsciously accepted by native speakers as one of the typical language patterns.
* * *
The two categories of parts of speech especially influenced by conversion are nouns and verbs.
Verbs made from nouns are the most numerous amongst the words produced by conversion: e. g. to hand,
to back, to face, to eye, to mouth, to nose, to dog, to wolf, to monkey, to can, to coal, to stage, to screen,
to room, to floor, to blackmail, to blacklist, to honeymoon, and very many others.
Nouns are frequently made from verbs: do (e. g. This is the queerest do I've ever come across. Do
— event, incident), go (e. g. He has still plenty of go at his age. Go — energy), make, run, find, catch, cut,
walk, worry, show, move, etc.
Verbs can also be made from adjectives: to pale, to yellow, to cool, to grey, to rough (e. g. We
decided to rough it in the tents as the weather was warm), etc.
Other parts of speech are not entirely unsusceptible to conversion as the following examples
show: to down, to out (as in a newspaper heading Diplomatist Outed from Budapest), the ups and downs,
the ins and outs, like, n. (as in the like of me and the like of you).

CONVERSION IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF SPEECH

Here we present the types of conversion according to parts of speech and secondary word classes
involved. By secondary word classes we mean lexico-grammatical classes, that is subsets within parts of
speech that differ in meaning and functions, as, for instance, transitive and intransitive verbs, countable
and uncountable nouns, gradable and non-gradable adjectives, and so on.
We know already that the most frequent types of conversion are those from noun to verb, from
verb to noun and from adjective to noun and to verb. The first type seems especially important,
conversion being the main process of verb-formation at present.
Less frequent but also quite possible is conversion from form words to nouns. E. g. He liked to
know the ins and outs, I shan't go into the whys and wherefores. He was familiar with ups and downs of
life. Use is even made of affixes. Thus, ism is a separate word nowadays meaning 'a set of ideas or
principles', e. g. Freudism, existentialism and all the other isms.
In all the above examples the change of paradigm is present and helpful for classifying the newly
coined words as cases of conversion. But it is not absolutely necessary, because conversion is not limited
to such parts of speech, which possess a paradigm. That, for example, may be converted into an adverb in
informal speech: I was that hungry I could have eaten a horse.
Some scientists extend the notion of conversion to re-classification of secondary word classes
within one part of speech, a phenomenon also called transposition. Thus, mass nouns and abstract nouns
are converted into countable nouns with the meanings 'a unit of N', 'a kind of N', 'an instance of N'. E. g.
two coffees, different oils (esp. in technical literature), peaceful initiatives.
The next commonest change is changing of intransitive verbs into transitive: to run a horse in a
race, to march the prisoners, to dive a plane. Other secondary verb-classes can be changed likewise.
Non-gradable adjectives become gradable with a certain change of meaning: He is more English than the
English.

SUBSTANTIATION

The cases when words with an adjective stem have the paradigm of a noun may be classified as
substantiation, e. g. a private, the private's uniform, a group of privates. Other examples of words that are
completely substantiated (i.e. may have the plural form or be used in the Possessive case) are captive,
conservative, criminal, female, fugitive, grown-up, intellectual, male, mild, native, neutral, radical, red,
relative and many more.
The degree of substantiation may be different. Alongside with complete substantiation (the
private, the private's, the privates), when the word possesses all the paradigms of the part of speech it
becomes, there exists partial substantiation. In this last case a substantiated adjective or participle denotes
a group or a class of people: the blind, the dead, the English, the poor, the rich, the accused, the
condemned, the living, the unemployed, the wounded, the lower-paid.
We call these words partially substantiated, because 1) they undergo no morphological changes,
i.e. do not acquire a new paradigm and are only used with the definite article and a collective meaning. 2)
Besides they keep some properties of adjectives. They can, for instance, be modified by adverbs. E. g.:
Success is the necessary misfortune of human life, but it is only to the very unfortunate that it comes early
(Trollope).
Besides the substantiated adjectives denoting human beings there is a considerable group of
abstract nouns, as is well illustrated by such grammatical terms as: the Singular, the Plural, the Present,
the Past, the Future, and also: the evil, the good, the impossible. For instance: "One should never struggle
against the inevitable," he said (Christie).
SHORTENING

This comparatively new way of word-building has achieved a high degree of productivity
nowadays, especially in American English.
Unlike conversion, shortening produces new words in the same part of speech. The bulk of
curtailed words is constituted by nouns. Verbs are hardly ever shortened in present-day English. Rev from
revolve and tab from tabulate may be considered exceptions. Shortened adjectives are very few and
mostly reveal a combined effect of shortening and suffixation, e. g. comfy : : comfortable, dilly : :
delightful, imposs : : impossible, mizzy : : miserable, which occur in schoolgirl slang.
Shortenings (or contracted/curtailed words) are produced in two different ways. The first is to
make a new word from a syllable (rarer, two) of the original word. The second way of shortening is to
make a new word from the initial letters of a word group: U.N.O. ['juinau] from the United Nations
Organization, B.B.C. from the British Broadcasting Corporation, M.P. from Member of Parliament. This
type is called initial shortenings.
Various classifications of shortened words have been or may be offered. The generally accepted
one is that based on the position of the clipped part. According to whether it is the final, initial or middle
part of the word that is cut off we distinguish: 1) f i n a l clipping (or apocope), from Greek apokoptein
'cut off’, 2) initial clipping (or a p h e s i s, i.e. a p h e r e s i s), from Greek aphaire-sis 'a taking away' and
3) m e d i a l clipping (or syncope), from Greek syncope 'a cutting up'.
1. Final clipping in which the beginning of the prototype is retained is practically the rule, and
forms the bulk of the class, e. g, ad, advert : : advertisement; coke : : coca-cola; ed : : editor; fab : :
fabulous; gym: : gymnastics or gymnasium; lab : : laboratory; mac : : mackintosh; ref : : referee;
vegs : : veggies or vegies, vegetables, and many others.
2. Initial-clipped words are less numerous but much more firmly established as separate lexical
units with a meaning very different from that of the prototype and stylistically neutral doublets, e. g. cute
an (Am) acute; fend v : : defend; mend v : : amend; story n : : history; tend v : : attend. Cases like cello :
: violoncello and phone : : telephone where the curtailed words are stylistical synonyms or even variants
of their respective prototypes are very rare. Neologisms are few, e. g. chute : : parachute. It is in this
group that the process of assimilation of loan words is especially frequent.
Final and initial clipping may be combined and result in curtailed words with the middle part of
the prototype retained. These are few and definitely colloquial, e. g. flu : : influenza; frig or fridge : :
refrigerator; tec : : detective. It is worthy of note that what is retained is the stressed syllable of the
prototype.
3. Curtailed words with the middle part of the word left out are equally few. They may be further
subdivided into two groups: (a) words with a final-clipped stem retaining the functional morpheme:
maths : : mathematics, specs : : spectacles; (b) contractions due to a gradual process of elision under the
influence of rhythm and context. Thus, fancy : : fantasy, ma'am : : madam may be regarded as
accelerated forms.
LECTURE 6

COMPOUNDING (COMPOSITION) AND MINOR TYPES OF WORD-BUILDING

COMPOUNDING

This type of word-building, in which new words are produced by combining two or more stems, is
one of the three most productive types in Modern English, the other two are conversion and affixation.
Compounds, though certainly fewer in quantity than derived or root words, still represent one of the most
typical and specific features of English word-structure.
There are at least three aspects of composition that present special interest.
1) The first is the structural aspect. Compounds are not homogeneous in structure. Traditionally
three types are distinguished: neutral, morphological and syntactic.
In neutral compounds the process of compounding is performed without any linking elements, by
a mere juxtaposition of two stems, as in blackbird, shop-window, sunflower, bedroom, tallboy, etc. There
are three subtypes of neutral compounds depending on the structure of the constituent stems.
 The examples above represent the subtype, which may be described as simple neutral
compounds: they consist of simple affixless stems.
 Compounds which have affixes in their structure are called derived or derivational
compounds. E. g. absent-mindedness, blue-eyed, golden-haired, broad-shouldered,
lady-killer, film-goer, music-lover, honey-mooner, first-nighter, late-comer, newcomer,
early-riser, evildoer. The productivity of this type is confirmed by a considerable
number of comparatively recent formations, such as teenager, babysitter, fourseater
("car or boat with four seats"), doubledecker ("a ship or bus with two decks").
Numerous nonce-words are coined on this pattern which is another proof of its high
productivity: e. g. luncher-out ("a person who habitually takes his lunch in restaurants
and not at home"), goose-flesher ("murder story").
 The third subtype of neutral compounds is called contracted compounds. These words
have a shortened (contracted) stem in their structure: TV-set (-program, -show, -canal,
etc.), V-day (Victory day), G-man (Government man "FBI agent"), H-bag (handbag),
T-shirt, etc.
Morphological compounds are few in number. This type is non-productive. It is represented by
words in which two compounding stems are combined by a linking vowel or consonant, e.g. Anglo-
Saxon, Franko-Prussian, handiwork, handicraft, craftsmanship, spokesman, statesman.
In syntactic compounds (the term is arbitrary) we once more find a feature of specifically English
word-structure. These words are formed from segments of speech, preserving in their structure numerous
traces of syntagmatic relations typical of speech: articles, prepositions, adverbs, as in the nouns lily-of-
the-valley, Jack-of-all-trades, good-for-nothing, mother-in-law, sit-at-home. Syntactical relations and
grammatical patterns current in present-day English can be clearly traced in the structures of such
compound nouns as pick-me-up, know-all, know-nothing, go-between, get-together, whodunit. The last
word (meaning "a detective story") was obviously coined from the ungrammatical variant of the word-
group who (has) done it.
In this group of compounds, once more, we find a great number of neologisms, and whodunit is
one of them. Consider, also, the following fragment, which make rich use of modern city traffic terms:
Randy managed to weave through a maze of one-way-streets, no-left-turns, and no-stopping-zones ...
(From A Five-Colour Buick by P. Anderson Wood)
The structure of most compounds is transparent, as it were, and clearly reveals the origin of these
words from word-combinations. The fragment below illustrates admirably the very process of coining
nonce-words according to the productive patterns of composition.
"I have decided that you are up to no good. I am well aware that that is your natural condition. But I
prefer you to be up to no good in London. Which is more used to up-to-no-gooders." (From The French
Lieutenant's Woman by J. Fowles)
The up-to-no-gooders of the example, it is certainly a combination of syntactic and derivational
types, as it is made from a segment of speech which is held together by the -er suffix. A similar formation
is represented by the nonce-word breakfast-in-the-bedder ("a person who prefers to have his breakfast in
bed").
2) Another focus of interest is the semantic aspect of compound words, that is, the question of
correlations of the separate meanings of the constituent parts and the actual meaning of the compound.
Or, to put it in easier terms: can the meaning of a compound word be regarded as the sum of its
constituent meanings?
To try and answer this question, let us consider the following groups of examples.
(1) Classroom, bedroom, working-man, evening-gown, dining-room, sleeping-car, reading-room, danc-
ing-hall.
This group seems to represent compounds whose meanings can really be described as the sum of
their constituent meanings. Yet, in the last four words we can distinctly detect a slight shift of meaning.
The first component in these words, if taken as a free form, denotes an action or state of whatever or
whoever is characterized by the word. Yet, a sleeping-car is not a car that sleeps (cf. a sleeping child), nor
is a dancing-hall actually dancing (cf. dancing pairs).
The shift of meaning becomes much more pronounced in the second group of examples.
(2) Blackboard, blackbird, football, lady-killer, pickpocket, good-for-nothing, lazybones, chatterbox,
butterfingers..
In these compounds one of the components (or both) has changed its meaning: a blackboard is
neither a board nor necessarily black, football is not a ball but a game, a chatterbox not a box but a
person, and a lady-killer kills no one but is merely a man who fascinates women. It is clear that in all
these compounds the meaning of the whole word cannot be defined as the sum of the constituent
meanings. The process of change of meaning in some such words has gone so far that the meaning of one
or both constituents is no longer in the least associated with the current meaning of the corresponding free
form, and yet the speech community quite calmly accepts such seemingly illogical word groups as a
white blackbird, pink bluebells or an entirely confusing statement like: Blackberries are red when they
are green.
Yet, despite a certain readjustment in the semantic structure of the word, the meanings of the
constituents of the compounds of this second group are still transparent: you can see through them the
meaning of the whole complex. Knowing the meanings of the constituents a student of English can get a
fairly clear idea of what the whole word means even if he comes across it for the first time. At least, it is
clear that a blackbird is some kind of bird and that a good-for-nothing is not meant as a compliment.
(3) In the third group of compounds the process of deducing the meaning of the whole from those
of the constituents is impossible. The key to meaning seems to have been irretrievably lost: ladybird is
not a bird, but an insect, bluestocking is a person, whereas bluebottle may denote both a flower and an
insect but never a bottle.
Similar enigmas are encoded in such words as man-of-war ("warship"), merry-go-round
("carousel"), mother-of-pearl ("irridescent substance forming the inner layer of certain shells"), etc.
The compounds whose meanings do not correspond to the separate meanings of their constituent
parts (2nd and 3rd group listed above) are called idiomatic compounds, in contrast to the first group
known as non-idiomatic compounds.
The suggested subdivision into three groups is based on the degree of semantic cohesion of the
constituent parts, the third group representing the extreme case of cohesion where the constituent
meanings blend to produce an entirely new meaning.
The following joke rather vividly shows what happens if a partially idiomatic compound is
misunderstood as non-idiomatic.
Patient: They tell me, doctor, you are a perfect lady-killer.
Doctor: Oh, no, no! I assure you, my dear madam, I make no distinction between the sexes.
 The structural type of compound words and the word-building type of composition have certain
advantages for communication purposes.
***
A further theoretical aspect of composition is the criteria for distinguishing between a compound
and a word-combination.
This question has a direct bearing on the specific feature of the structure of most English
compounds, which has already been mentioned: with the exception of the rare morphological type, they
originate directly from word-combinations and are often homonymous to them: cf. a tall boy — a tallboy.
In this case 1) the graphic criterion of distinguishing between a word and a word-group seems to
be sufficiently convincing, yet in many cases it cannot wholly be relied on. The spelling of many
compounds, tallboy among them, can be varied even within the same book. In the case of tallboy the 2)
semantic criterion seems more reliable, for the striking difference in the meanings of the word and the
word-group certainly points to the highest degree of semantic cohesion in the word: tallboy does not even
denote a person, but a piece of furniture, a chest of drawers supported by a low stand.
Moreover, the word-group a tall boy conveys two concepts (1. a young male person; 2. big in
size), whereas the word tallboy expresses one concept.
Yet the semantic criterion alone cannot prove anything as phraseological units also convey a
single concept and some of them are characterized by a high degree of semantic cohesion.
3) The phonetic criterion for compounds may be treated as that of a single stress. The criterion is
convincingly applicable to many compound nouns, yet does not work with compound adjectives:
cf. 'slowcoach, ‘blackbird, 'tallboy,
but: ‘blue-'eyed, 'absent-'minded, 'ill-'mannered.
Still, it is true that the morphological structure of these adjectives and their hyphenated spelling
leave no doubt about their status as words and not word-groups.
4) Morphological and 5) syntactic criteria can also be applied to compound words in order to
distinguish them from word-groups.
In the word-group a tall boy each of the constituents is independently open to grammatical
changes peculiar to its own category as a part of speech: They were the tallest boys in their form.
Between the constituent parts of the word-group other words can be inserted: a tall handsome boy.
The compound tallboy — and, in actual fact, any other compound — is not subject to such
changes. The first component is grammatically invariable; the plural form ending is added to the whole
unit: tallboys. No word can be inserted between the components, even with the compounds, which have a
traditional separate graphic form.
All this leads us to the conclusion that, in most cases, only several criteria (semantic,
morphological, syntactic, phonetic, graphic) can convincingly classify a lexical unit as either a compound
word or a word group.

SEMI-AFFIXES
Consider the following example.
"... The Great Glass Elevator is shockproof, waterproof, bombproof, bulletproof, and Knidproof1 ..."
(From Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator by R. Dahl)
Better sorts of lip-stick are frequently described in advertisements as kissproof. Some building
materials may be advertised as fireproof. Certain technical devices are foolproof meaning that they are
safe even in a fool's hands.
All these words, with -proof for the second component, stand between compounds and derived
words in their characteristics. On the one hand, the second component seems to bear all the features of a
stem and preserves certain semantic associations with the free form proof. On the other hand, the meaning
of -proof in all the numerous words built on this pattern has become so generalized that it is certainly
approaching that of a suffix. The high productivity of the pattern is proved, once more, by the possibility
of coining nonce-words after this pattern: look-proof and Knidproof, the second produced from the non-
existent stem Knid-.
The component -proof, standing thus between a stem and an affix, is regarded by some scholars as
a semi-affix.
 Another example of semi-affix is -man in a vast group of English nouns denoting people:
sportsman, gentleman, nobleman, salesman, seaman, fisherman, countryman, statesman, policeman,
chairman, etc.
Other examples of semi-affixes are -land (e. g. Ireland, Scotland, fatherland, wonderland), -like
(e.g. ladylike, unladylike, businesslike, unbusinesslike, starlike, flowerlike, etc.), -worthy (e. g. seawor-
thy, trustworthy, praiseworthy).

SOME OF THE MINOR TYPES OF MODERN WORD-BUILDING

SOUND-IMITATION (ONOMATOPOEIA)
Words coined by this interesting type of word-building are made by imitating different kinds of
sounds that may be produced by animals, birds, insects, human beings and inanimate objects.
Some most frequent examples of it are: bow-wow, miaow, cock-doodle-doo, wham, crack, etc.
Some words may imitate through their sound form certain unacoustic features and qualities of
inanimate objects, actions and processes or that the meaning of the word can be regarded as the
immediate relation of the sound group to the object. If a young chicken or kitten is described as fluffy
there seems to be something in the sound of the adjective that conveys the softness and the downy quality
of its plumage or its fur. Such verbs as to glance, to glide, to slide, to slip are supposed to convey by their
very sound the nature of the smooth, easy movement over a slippery surface. The sound form of the
words shimmer, glimmer, glitter seems to reproduce the wavering, tremulous nature of the faint light. The
sound of the verbs to rush, to dash, to flash may be said to reflect the brevity, swiftness and energetic
nature of their corresponding actions. The word thrill has something in the quality of its sound that very
aptly conveys the tremulous, tingling sensation it expresses.

REDUPLICATION
In reduplication new words are made by doubling a stem, either without any phonetic changes as
in bye-bye (coll. for good-bye) or with a variation of the root-vowel or consonant as in ping-pong, chit-
chat (this second type is called gradational reduplication).
This type of word-building is greatly facilitated in Modern English by the vast number of
monosyllables. Stylistically speaking, most words made by reduplication represent informal groups:
colloquialisms and slang. E. g. walkie-talkie ("a portable radio"), riff-raff ("the worthless or disreputable
element of society"; "the dregs of society").

BACK-FORMATION (REVERSION)
The earliest examples of this type of word-building are the verb to beg that was made from the
French borrowing beggar, to burgle from burglar, to cobble from cobbler. In all these cases the verb was
made from the noun by subtracting what was mistakenly associated with the English suffix -er. The
pattern of the type to work — worker was firmly established in the subconscious of English-speaking
people at the time when these formations appeared, and it was taken for granted that any noun denoting
profession or occupation is certain to have a corresponding verb of the same root. So, in the case of the
verbs to beg, to burgle, to cobble the process was reversed: instead of a noun made from a verb by
affixation (as in painter from to paint), a verb was produced from a noun by subtraction. That is why this
type of word-building received the name of back-formation or reversion.
Later examples of back-formation are to butle from butler, to baby-sit from baby-sitter, to force-
land from forced landing, to blood-transfuse from blood-transfusion, to fingerprint from finger printings.
LECTURE 7

PHRASEOLOGY AS A BRANCH OF LEXICOLOGY. PHRASEOLOGICAL UNIT AS A

NOTION. CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS

PHRASEOLOGY AS A BRANCH OF LEXICOLOGY

The present lecture deals with word-groups consisting of two or more words whose combination
is integrated as a unit with a specialized meaning of the whole, such as not for the world, with half a
heart, ups and downs, sleep like a log, can the leopard change his spots? it goes without saying, and so
on. Stability of such word-groups viewed as of statistical probability is a reliable criterion helping to
distinguish set expressions from free phrases with variable context.
Opinions differ as to how this part of the vocabulary should be defined, classified, described and
analysed.
Scientists use the same word "phraseology" to denote the branch of linguistics studying the word-
groups having stable structure and meaning. These groups are usually called phraseological units, which
according to the semantic principle are divided into set expressions, semi-fixed combinations and free
phrases.

SET EXPRESSIONS, SEMI-FIXED COMBINATIONS AND FREE PHRASES

Every utterance is a patterned, rhythmed and segmented sequence of signals. At the lexical level
these signals building up the utterance are not exclusively words. Alongside with separate words speakers
use larger blocks consisting of more than one word yet functioning as a whole. These set phrases differ
greatly in structure, function, semantics and style. Not only expressive colloquialisms, whether motivated
like a sight for sore eyes and to know the ropes, or demotivated like tit for tat, but also terms like blank
verse, the great vowel shift, direct object, political cliches: cold war, round-table conference, summit
meeting, and emotionally and stylistically neutral combinations: in front of, as well as, a great deal, give
up, etc. may be referred to this type. Even this short list is sufficient to show that the number of
component elements, both notional and formal, varies, and that the resulting units may have the
distribution of different parts of speech.
The integration of two or more words into a unit functioning as a whole with a characteristic
unity of nomination (bread and butter = butter and bread) is chosen for the fundamental property, of
phrases. They vary by the possibility of substituting their parts.
Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semifixed combinations. All these are but
different stages of restrictions imposed upon co-occurrence of words.
In free combinations the linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties of
words. A free phrase such as to go early permits substitution of any of its elements without semantic
change in the other element or elements. The verb go in free phrases may be preceded by any noun or
followed by any adverbial. Such substitution is, however, never unlimited (cf. * a singing dream, to swim
bitterly). In a free phrase each element has a great semantic independence. Each component may be
substituted without affecting the meaning of the other: to cut bread, to cut cheese, to eat bread.
In semi-fixed combinations lexical semantic limits are manifest in restrictions imposed upon types
of words, which can be used in a given pattern. For example, the pattern consisting of the verb go
followed by a preposition and a noun with no article before it (go to school, go to market, go to courts,
etc.) is used only with nouns of places where definite actions or functions are performed.
No substitution of any elements whatever is possible in the following stereotyped (unchangeable)
set expressions, which differ in many other respects: all the world and his wife, the man in the street, red
tape, calf love, heads or tails, first night, to gild the pill, to hope for the best, busy as a bee, fair and
square, stuff and nonsense, time and again, to and fro. These examples represent extreme restrictions in
co-occurrence of words in the English language. Here no variation and no substitution is possible,
because it would destroy the meaning of the whole.
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
 According to the type of motivation, three types of phraseological units are suggested:
phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations.
Phraseological fusions (e.g. tit for tat) represent as their name suggests the highest stage of
blending together. The meaning of components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the whole, by
its expressiveness and emotional properties. Phraseological fusions are specific for every language and do
not lend themselves to literal translation into other languages.
Phraseological unities are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated. The emotional
quality is based upon the image created by the whole as in to stick (to stand) to one's guns, i.e. 'refuse to
change one's statements or opinions in the face of opposition', implying courage and integrity. The
example reveals another characteristic of the type, namely the possibility of synonymic substitution,
which can be only very limited. Some of these are easily translated and even international, e.g. to know
the way the wind is blowing.
The third group in this classification, the phraseological combinations, are not only motivated but
contain one component used in its direct meaning while the other is used figuratively: meet the demand,
meet the necessity, meet the requirements. The mobility of this type is much greater, the substitutions are
not necessarily synonymic.
Now we pass on to a formal and functional classification based on the fact that 1) a set expres sion
functioning in speech may be similar to definite classes of words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.), whereas
2) they also may vary structurally.
According to the first criterion, they distinguish set expressions that are nominal phrases: the root
of the trouble; verbal phrases: put one's best foot forward; adjectival phrases: as good as gold; red as a
cherry; adverbial phrases: from head to foot; prepositional phrases: in the course of; conjunctional
phrases: as long as, on the other hand; interjectional phrases: Well, I never! A stereotyped sentence also
introduced into speech as a ready-made formula may be illustrated by Never say die! 'never give up hope',
take your time 'do not hurry'.
The above classification takes into consideration not only the type of component parts but also the
functioning of the whole, thus, tooth and nail is not a nominal but an adverbial unit, because it serves to
modify a verb (e. g. fight tooth and nail); the identically structured lord and master is a nominal phrase.
Moreover, not every nominal phrase is used in all syntactic functions possible for nouns. Thus, a bed of
roses or a bed of nails and forlorn hope are used only predicatively.
Within each of these classes a further subdivision is necessary. The following list is not meant to
be exhaustive, but to give only the principal features of the types (HO1).
The list of types gives a clear notion of the contradictory nature of set expressions: structured like
phrases they function as words.

SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SET EXPRESSION AND A WORD

The main point of difference between a word and a set expression is the divisibility of the latter
into separately structured elements, which is contrasted to the structural integrity of words. Although
equivalent to words in being introduced into speech ready-made, a set expression is different from them,
because it can be resolved into words, whereas words are resolved into morphemes. Morphological
divisibility is evident when one of the elements (but not the last one as in a compound word) is subjected
to morphological change like in the following examples:
He played second fiddle to her in his father's heart (Galsworthy). ... She disliked playing second
fiddle (Christie). To play second fiddle 'to occupy a secondary, subordinate position'. There is also the
possibility of morphological changes in adjectives forming part of phraseological units: He's deader than
a doornail; It made the night blacker than pitch.
It goes without saying that the possibility of a morphological change cannot regularly serve as a
distinctive feature, because it may take place only in a limited number of set expressions (verbal or
nominal).
The question of syntactic ties within a set expression is even more controversial. All the authors
agree that set expressions (for the most part) represent one member of the sentence, but opinions differ as
to whether this means that there are no syntactical ties within set expressions themselves. Actually the
number of words in a sentence is not necessarily equal to the number of its members.
The existence of syntactical relations within a set expression can be proved by the possibility of
syntactical transformations (however limited) or inversion of elements and the substitution of the variable
member, all this without destroying the set expression as such. By a variable element we mean the
element of the set expression, which is structurally necessary but free to vary lexically. It is usually
indicated in dictionaries by indefinite pronouns, often inserted in round brackets: make (somebody's) hair
stand on end 'to give the greatest astonishment or fright to another person'; sow (one's) wild oats 'to
indulge in dissipation while young'. The word in brackets can be freely substituted: make (my, your, her,
the reader's) hair stand on end.
All these facts are convincing manifestations of syntactical ties within the units in question.
Containing the same elements these units can change their morphological form and syntactical structure,
they may be called changeable set expressions, as contrasted to stereotyped or unchangeable set
expressions, admitting no change either morphological or syntactical. The second type, indivisible and
unchangeable, are nearer to a word than their more flexible counterparts.
All these examples proving the divisibility and variability of set expressions throw light on the
difference between them and words.

§ 9.6 PROVERBS, SAYINGS, FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS AND CLICHÉS

The place of proverbs, sayings and familiar quotations with respect to set expressions is a
controversial issue. A proverb is a short familiar epigrammatic saying expressing popular wisdom, a truth
or a moral lesson in a concise and imaginative way. Proverbs have much in common with set expressions,
because their lexical components are also constant, their meaning is traditional and mostly figurative, and
they are introduced into speech ready-made. That is why some scholars think proverbs must be studied
together with phraseological units.
Another reason why proverbs must be taken into consideration together with set expressions is
that they often form the basis of set expressions. E. g. the last straw breaks the camel's back : : the last
straw; a drowning man will clutch at a straw : : clutch at a straw; it is useless to lock the stable door
when the steed is stolen : : lock the stable door 'to take precautions when the accident they are meant to
prevent has already happened'.
As to familiar quotations, they are different from proverbs in their origin. They come from
literature but by and by they become part and parcel of the language, so that many people using them do
not even know that they are quoting, and very few could accurately name the play or passage on which
they are drawing even when they are aware of using a quotation from W. Shakespeare.
The Shakespearian quotations have become and remain extremely numerous — they have
contributed enormously to the store of the language. Some of the most often used are: / know a trick
worth two of that; A man more sinned against than sinning ("King Lear"); Uneasy lies the head that
wears a crown ("Henry IV"). Very many come from "Hamlet", for example: Frailty, thy name is woman;
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark; Brevity is the soul of wit; The rest is silence; Thus
conscience does make cowards of us all; There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are
dreamt of in your philosophy.
Excepting only W. Shakespeare, no poet has given more of his lines than A. Pope to the common
vocabulary of the English-speaking world. The following are only a few of the best known quotations: To
err is human; To forgive, divine; For fools rush in where angels fear to tread; At every word a reputation
dies.
Some quotations are so often used that they come to be considered clichés. The term comes from
the printing trade. The cliché (the word is French) is a metal block used for printing pictures and pages
turning them out in great numbers. The term is used to denote such phrases as have become hackneyed
and stale. Being constantly and mechanically repeated they have lost their original expressiveness and so
are better avoided. Opinions may vary on what is tolerable and what sounds an offence to most of the
listeners or readers, as everyone may have his own likes and dislikes. The following are perhaps the most
generally recognized: the acid test, ample opportunities, astronomical figures, the arms of Morpheus, to
break the ice, consigned to oblivion, the irony of fate, stand shoulder to shoulder, swan song, etc.
LECTURE 8

ENGLISH VOCABULARY AS A SYSTEM. TYPES OF SEMANTIC GROUPS. THE NOTION

OF A SEMANTIC FIELD

ENGLISH VOCABULARY AS A SYSTEM

The previous lectures were dedicated to the separate units of the lexical system (words and
phraseological units), whereas the system of the units also makes an object of lexicology.
Though the vocabulary of a language, in contrast to grammar, seems to be chaotic, lexicology
tends to study it as patterns of semantic relationships, and of any formal phonological, morphological and
contextual means by which they may be rendered. So, lexicology also aims at systematisation.
The term system as used in present-day lexicology denotes not merely the sum total of English
words, it denotes the set of elements associated and functioning together according to certain laws. It is
coherent homogeneous whole, constituent of interdependent elements of the same order related in certain
specific ways.

TYPES OF SEMANTIC GROUPS IN THE LEXICAL SYSTEM

Since lexicology deals with the vocabulary as sets of elements, it is important to single out the
ways these sets are formed. We will call this process grouping: singling out the sets of vocabulary units
united according to a certain criterion. There are the following types of semantic grouping to be
considered: morphological, lexico-grammatical, thematic, ideographic and non-semantic.

MORPHOLOGICAL AND LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL GROUPING

At the morphological level words are divided into four groups according to their morphological
structure, namely the number and type of morphemes which compose them. They are:
1. Root or morpheme words. Their stem contains one free morpheme, e. g. dog, hand.
2. Derivatives contain no less than two morphemes of which at least one is bound, e.g. dogged,
doggedly, handy, handful; sometimes both are bound: terrier.
3. Compound words consist of not less than two free morphemes, the presence of bound
morphemes is possible but not necessary, e. g. dog-cheap 'very cheap'; dog-days 'hottest part of the year';
handball, handbook.
4. Compound derivatives consist of not less than two free morphemes and one bound morpheme
referring to the whole combination. The pattern is (stem + stem) + suffix, e. g. dog-legged 'crooked or
bent like a dog's hind leg', left-handed.
This division is the basic one for lexicology.
Another type of traditional lexicological grouping is known as word-families. The number of
groups is certainly much greater, being equal to the number of root morphemes if all the words are
grouped according to the root morpheme. For example: dog, doggish, doglike, doggy/doggie, to dog,
dogged, doggedly, doggedness, dog-wolf, dog-days, dog-biscuit, dog-cart, etc.; hand, handy, handicraft,
handbag, handball, handful, handmade, handsome, etc.
Similar groupings according to a common suffix or prefix are also possible, if not as often made
use of. The greater the combining power of the affix, the more numerous the group is. Groups with such
suffixes as -er, -ing, -ish, -less, -ness constitute infinite (open) sets, i.e. are almost unlimited, because new
combinations are constantly created. When the suffix is no longer productive the group may have a
diminishing number of elements, as with the adjective-forming suffix -some, e. g. gladsome, gruesome,
handsome, lithesome, lonesome, tiresome, troublesome, wearisome, wholesome, winsome, etc.
Lexico-grammatical grouping consists in classifying words not in isolation but taking them within
actual utterances. Here the first contrast to consider is the contrast between notional words and form or
functional words. Actually the definition of the word as a minimum free form holds good for notional
words only. It is only notional words that can stand alone and yet have meaning and form a complete
utterance. They can name different objects of reality, the qualities of these objects and actions or the
process in which they take part. In sentences they function syntactically as some primary or secondary
members.
Form words, also called functional words, empty words or auxiliaries (the latter term is coined by
H. Sweet), are lexical units which are called words, although they do not conform to the definition of the
word, because they are used only in combination with notional words or in reference to them. This group
comprises auxiliary verbs, prepositions, conjunctions and relative adverbs. Primarily they express
grammatical relationships between words. This does not, however, imply that they have no lexical
meaning of their own.
The borderline between notional and functional words is not always very clear and does not
correspond to that between various parts of speech. Thus, most verbs are notional words, but the auxiliary
verbs are classified as form words. It is open to discussion whether link verbs should be treated as form
words or not. The situation is very complicated if we consider pronouns. Personal, demonstrative and
interrogative pronouns, as their syntactical functions testify, are notional words; reflexive pronouns seem
to be form words building up such analytical verb forms as warmed myself, but this is open to discussion.
As to prop-words (one, those, etc.), some authors think that they should be considered as a separate, third
group.
Next type of grouping is subdivisions of parts of speech into lexico-grammatical groups. By a
lexico-grammatical group we understand a class of words, which have 1) a common lexico-grammatical
meaning, 2) a common paradigm, 3) the same substituting elements and possibly 4) a characteristic set of
suffixes rendering the lexico-grammatical meaning. These groups are subsets of the parts of speech,
several lexico-grammatical groups constitute one part of speech. Thus, English nouns are subdivided
approximately into the following lexico-grammatical groups: personal names, animal names, collective
names (for people), collective names (for animals), abstract nouns, material nouns, object nouns, proper
names for people, toponymic proper nouns.
If, for instance, we consider a group of nouns having the following characteristics: two number
forms, the singular and the plural; two case forms; animate, substituted in the singular by he or she;
common, i.e. denoting a notion and not one particular object (as proper names do); able to combine
regularly with the indefinite article, some of them characterized by such suffixes as -erl-or, -ist, -ee, -eer
and the semi-affix -man, we obtain the so-called personal names: agent, baker, artist, volunteer, visitor,
workman.
Lexico-grammatical groups should not be confused with parts of speech. A few more examples
will help to grasp the difference. Audience and honesty, for instance, belong to the same part of speech
but to different lexico-grammatical groups, because their lexico-grammatical meaning is different:
audience is a group of people, and honesty is a quality; they have different paradigms: audience has two
forms, singular and plural, honesty is used only in the singular; also honesty is hardly ever used in the
Possessive case unless personified. Being a collective noun, the word audience is substituted by they;
honesty is substituted by it.

THEMATIC AND IDEOGRAPHIC GROUPS. THE THEORIES OF SEMANTIC FIELDS

A further subdivision within the lexico-grammatical groups is achieved in the well-known
thematic subgroups, such as terms of kinship, names for parts of the human body, colour terms, military
terms and so on. The basis of grouping this time is not only linguistic but also extra-linguistic: the words
are associated, because the things they name occur together and are closely connected in reality. It has
been found that these words constitute quite definitely articulated spheres held together by differences,
oppositions and distinctive values. For an example it is convenient to turn to the adjectives. These are
known to be subdivided into qualitative and relative lexico-grammatical groups. Among the former,
adjectives that characterize a substance for shape, colour, physical or mental qualities, speed, size, etc. are
distinguished.
The group of colour terms has always attracted the attention of linguists, because it permits
research of lexical problems of primary importance. The most prominent among them is the problem of
the systematic or non-systematic character of vocabulary, of the difference in naming the same extra-
linguistic referents by different languages, and of the relationship between thought and language. There
are hundreds of articles written about colour terms.
 The basic colour name system comprises four words: blue, greenr yellow, red; they cover the
whole spectrum. All the other words denoting colours bring details into this scheme and form subsystems
of the first and second order, which may be considered as synonymic series with corresponding basic
terms as their dominants. Thus, red is taken as a dominant for the subsystem of the first degree: scarlet,
orange, crimson, rose, and the subsystem of the second degree is: vermilion, wine red, cherry, coral,
copper-red, etc. Words belonging to the basic system differ from words belonging to subsystems not only
semantically but in some other features as well. These features are: (1) frequency of use; (2) motivation;
(3) simple or compound character; (4) stylistic colouring; (5) combining power. The basic terms, for
instance, are frequent words, their motivation is lost in present-day English. They are all native words of
long standing. The motivation of colour terms in the subsystem is very clear: they are derived from the
names of fruit (orange), flowers (rose), colouring stuffs (indigo). Basic system words and most of the first
degree terms are root words, the second degree terms are derivatives or compounds: copper-red, lade-
green, sky-coloured. Stylistically the basic terms are definitely neutral, the second degree terms are either
special or poetic.
All the elements of lexico-semantic groups remain within limits of the same part of speech and the
same lexico-grammatical group. When grammatical meaning is not taken into consideration, we obtain
the so-called ideographic groups.
The ideographic subgroups are independent of classification into parts of speech. Words and
expressions are here classed not according to their lexico-grammatical meaning but strictly according to
their signification, i.e. to the system of logical notions. These subgroups may comprise nouns, verbs,
adjectives and adverbs together, provided they refer to the same notion. Thus, such words as light n,
bright a, shine v and other words connected with the notion of light as something permitting living beings
to see the surrounding objects are united into the ideographic group.
This leads to the conception of linguistic fields. The starting point of the whole field theory is the
theory of intellectual terms, which form a lexical sphere where the significance of each unit is determined
by its neighbours. This sphere is called a linguistic, conceptual or lexical field. The field unites different
parts of speech, words and phrases of different structure. For example, the lexico-grammatical field of
temporality unites verbs as its core, prepositions, adjectives, nouns, adverbs: hour, year, often, late,
frequent. Situated farther and farther from the core (less and less frequently rendering temporal meaning)
the elements of the lexical field form the periphery of the field, where figurative means are situated, like
in: two cigarettes ago. once in a blue moon.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF NON-SEMANTIC GROUPING

The simplest, most obvious non-semantic grouping, extensively used in all branches of applied
linguistics is the alphabetical organization of written words, as represented in most dictionaries. It is of
great practical value as the simplest and the most universal way of facilitating the search for the necessary
word. The theoretical value of alphabetical grouping is almost null, because no other property of the word
can be predicted from the letter or letters the word begins with. We cannot infer anything about the word
if the only thing we know is that it begins with a p. Only in exceptional cases some additional information
can be obtained on a different, e.g. the etymological, level. For instance, words beginning with a w are
mostly native, and those beginning with a ph borrowed from Greek. But such cases are few and far
between.
The rhyming, i.e. inverse, dictionary presents a similar non-semantic grouping of isolated written
words differing from the first in that the sound is also taken into consideration and in that the grouping is
done the other way round and the words are arranged according to the similarity of their ends. The
practical value of this type is much more limited. These dictionaries are intended for poets. They may be
also used, if but rarely, by teachers, when making up lists of words with similar suffixes.
A third type of non-semantic grouping of written words is based on their length, i.e. the number
of letters they contain. This type, worked out with some additional details, may prove useful for
communication engineering, for automatic reading of messages and correction of mistakes. It may prove
useful for linguistic theory as well, although chiefly in its modified form, with length measured not in the
number of letters but in the number of syllables. Important statistical correlations have been found to exist
between the number of syllables, the frequency, the number of meanings and the stylistical characteristics
a word possesses. The shorter words occur more frequently and accumulate a greater number of
meanings.
Finally, a very important type of non-semantic grouping for isolated lexical units is based on a
statistical analysis of their frequency. Frequency counts carried out for practical purposes of
lexicography, language teaching and shorthand enable the lexicographer to attach to each word a number
showing its importance and range of occurrence. The most frequent words are usually polysemantic and
stylistically neutral.
LECTURE 9

PHONETIC, MORPHOLOGICAL AND SEMANTIC MOTIVATION OF WORDS.

LINGUISTIC AND EXTRA-LINGUISTIC REASONS OF SEMANTIC SHIFTS

The term ‘motivation’ is used to denote the relationship existing between the phonemic or
morphemic composition and structural pattern of the word on the one hand, and its meaning on the other.
There are three main types of motivation: phonetical motivation, morphological motivation, and semantic
motivation.
When there is a certain similarity between the sounds that make up the word and those referred to
by the sense, the motivation is phonetical. Examples are: bang, buzz, cuckoo, giggle, gurgle, hiss, purr,
whistle, etc. Here the sounds of a word are imitative of sounds in nature because what is referred to is a
sound or at least, produces a characteristic sound (cuckoo). Although there exists a certain arbitrary
element in the resulting phonemic shape of the word, one can see that this type of motivation is
determined by the phonological system of each language as shown by the difference of echo-words for
the same concept in different languages. Phonetic motivation is not perfect replica of any acoustic
structure but only a rough approximation. This accounts for the variability of echo-words within one
language and between different languages. C f. cuckoo (Engl) but Kuckuck (Germ). Within the English
vocabulary there are different words, all sound imitative, meaning 'quick, foolish, indistinct talk': babble,
chatter, gabble, prattle. In this last group echoic creations combine phonological and morphological
motivation because they contain verbal affixe -le and -er forming frequentative verbs. We see therefore
that one word may combine different types of motivation.
Words denoting noises produced by animals are mostly sound imitative. In English they are
motivated only phonetically so that nouns and verbs are exactly the same. In Ukrainian the motivation
combines phonetical and morphological motivation. The Ukrainian words бекати v and бекання n are
equally represented in English by bleat. Cf. also: purr (of a cat), moo (of a cow), crow (of a cock), bark
(of a dog), neigh (of a horse) and their Ukrainian equivalents.
The morphological motivation may be quite regular. Thus, the prefix, ex- means 'former' when
added to human nouns: ex-filmstar, ex-president, ex-wife. Alongside with these cases there is a more
general use of ex-: in borrowed words it is unstressed and motivation is faded (expect, export, etc.).
The derived word re-think is motivated inasmuch as its morphological structure suggests the idea
of thinking again. Re- is one of the most common prefixes of the English language, it means 'again' and
'back' and is added to verbal stems or abstract deverbal noun stems, as in rebuild, reclaim, resell,
resettlement. Here again these newer formations should be compared with older borrowings from Latin
and French where re- is now unstressed, and the motivation faded. Compare re-cover 'cover again' and
recover 'get better'. In short: morphological motivation is especially obvious in newly coined words, or at
least words created in the present century. C f. detainee, manoeuvrable, prefabricated, racialist, self-
propelling, vitaminize, etc. In older words, root words and morphemes motivation is established
etymologically, if at all.
From the examples given above it is clear that motivation is the way in which a given meaning is
represented in the word. It reflects the type of nomination process chosen by the creator of the new word.
In deciding whether a word of long standing in the language is morphologically motivated according to
present-day patterns or not, one should be very careful. Similarity in sound form does not always
correspond to similarity in morphological pattern. Agential suffix -er is affixable to any verb, so that V+-
er means 'one who V-s' or 'something that V-s': writer, receiver, bomber, rocker, knocker. Yet, although
the verb numb exists in English, number is not 'one who numbs' but is derived from OFr nombre
borrowed into English and completely assimilated. The cases of regular morphological motivation
outnumber irregularities, and yet one must remember the principle of "fuzzy sets" in coming across the
word smoker with its variants: 'one who smokes tobacco' and 'a railway car in which passengers may
smoke'.
The third type of motivation is called semantic motivation. It is based on the co-existence of direct
and figurative meanings of the same word within the same synchronous system. Mouth continues to
denote a part of the human face, and at the same time it can metaphorically apply to any opening or
outlet: the mouth of a river, of a cave, of a furnace. Jacket is a short coat and also a protective cover for a
book or an electric wire. Ermine is not only the name of a small animal, but also of its fur, and the office
and rank of an English judge because in England ermine was worn by judges in court. In their direct
meaning neither mouth nor ermine is motivated.
As to compounds, their motivation is morphological if the meaning of the whole is based on the
direct meaning of the components, and semantic if the combination of components is used figuratively.
Thus, eyewash 'a lotion for the eyes' or headache 'pain in the head', or watchdog 'a dog kept for watching
property' are all morphologically motivated. If, on the other hand, they are used metaphorically as
'something said or done to deceive a person so that he thinks that what he sees is good, though in fact it is
not', 'anything or anyone very annoying' and 'a watchful human guardian', respectively, then the
motivation is semantic.
An interesting example of complex morpho-semantic motivation passing through several stages in
its history is the word teenager 'a person in his or her teens'. The motivation may be historically traced as
follows: the inflected form of the numeral ten produced the suffix -teen. The suffix later produces a stem
with a metonymical meaning (semantic motivation), receives the plural ending -s, and then produces a
new noun teens 'the years of a person's life of which the numbers end in -teen, namely from 13 to 19'. In
combination with age or aged the adjectives teen-age and teen-aged are coined, as in teen-age boy, teen-
age fashions. A morphologically motivated noun teenager is then formed with the help of the suffix -er
which is often added to compounds or noun phrases producing personal names according to the pattern
'one connected with...'.
The pattern is frequent enough. One must keep in mind, however, that not all words with a similar
morphemic composition will have the same derivational history and denote human beings. E. g. first-
nighter and honeymooner are personal nouns, but two-seater is 'a car or an aeroplane seating two persons',
back-hander is 'a back-hand stroke in tennis' and three-decker 'a sandwich made of three pieces of bread
with two layers of filling'.
When the connection between the meaning of the word and its form is conventional that is there is
no perceptible reason for the word having this particular phonemic and morphemic composition, the word
is said to be non-motivated for the present stage of language development.
Every vocabulary is in a state of constant development. Words that seem non-motivated at present
may have lost their motivation. The verb earn does not suggest at present any necessary connection with
agriculture. The connection of form and meaning seems purely conventional. Historical analysis shows,
however, that it is derived from OE (ge)-earnian 'to harvest'. In Modern English this connection no longer
exists and earn is now a non-motivated word.
Sometimes in an attempt to find motivation for a borrowed word the speakers change its form so
as to give it a connection with some well-known word. These cases of mistaken motivation received the
name of folk etymology. The phenomenon is not very frequent. Two examples will suffice: A nightmare is
not 'a she-horse that appears at night' but 'a terrifying dream personified in folklore as a female monster'.
(OE mara 'an evil spirit'.) The international radiotelephone signal may-day corresponding to the
telegraphic SOS used by aeroplanes and ships in distress has nothing to do with the First of May but is a
phonetic rendering of French m'aidez 'help me'.
Some linguists consider one more type of motivation closely akin to the imitative forms, namely
sound symbolism. Some words are supposed to illustrate the meaning more immediately than do ordinary
words. As the same combinations of sounds are used in many semantically similar words, they become
more closely associated with the meaning. Examples are: flap, flip, flop, flitter, flimmer, flicker, flutter,
flash, flush, flare; glare, glitter, glow, gloat, glimmer; sleet, slime, slush, where fl - is associated with
quick movement, gl- with light and fire, sl- with mud.
This sound symbolism phenomenon is not studied enough so far, so that it is difficult to say to
what extent it is valid. There are, for example, many English words, containing the initial fl- but not
associated with quick or any other movement: flat, floor, flour, flower. There is nothing muddy either in
the referents of sleep or slender.
To sum up this discussion of motivation: there are processes in the vocabulary that compel us to
modify the Saussurian principle according to which linguistic units are independent of the substance in
which they are realized and their associations is a matter of arbitrary convention. It is already not true for
phonetic motivation and only partly true for all other types. In the process of vocabulary development,
and we witness everyday its intensity, a speaker of a language creates new words and is understood
because the vocabulary system possesses established associations of form and meaning.

LINGUISTIC AND EXTRA-LINGUISTIC REASONS OF SEMANTIC SHIFTS

One of the branches of lexicology is semasiology, the historical and psychological study and the
classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic
development.

LINGUISTIC CAUSES OF SEMANTIC CHANGE

The vocabulary is the most flexible part of the language and it is precisely its semantic aspect that
responds most readily to every change in the human activity in whatever sphere it may happen to take
place.
The causes of semantic changes may be grouped under two main headings, linguistic and
extralinguistic ones. Linguistic causes influencing the process of vocabulary adaptation may be of
paradigmatic and syntagmatic character; in dealing with them we have to do with the constant interaction
and interdependence of vocabulary units in language and speech, such as 1) differentiation between
synonyms, 2) changes taking place in connection with ellipsis (omitting main parts of the sentence) and
with fixed contexts, 3) changes resulting from ambiguity (possibility to understand in different ways) in
certain contexts, and some other causes.
Differentiation of synonyms is a gradual change observed in the course of language history,
sometimes, but not necessarily, involving the semantic assimilation of loan words. Consider, for example,
the words time and tide. They used to be synonyms. Then tide took on its more limited application to the
shifting waters, and time alone is used in the general sense.
The word beast was borrowed from French into Middle English. Before it appeared the general
word for animal was deer which after the word beast was introduced became narrowed to its present
meaning 'a hoofed animal of which the males have antlers'. Somewhat later the Latin word animal was
also borrowed, then the word beast was restricted, and its meaning served to separate the four-footed kind
from all the other members of the animal kingdom. Thus, beast displaced deer and was in its turn itself
displaced by the generic animal.
Fixed context, then, may be regarded as another linguistic factor in semantic change. Both factors
are at work in the case of token: The noun token originally had the broad meaning of 'sign'. When brought
into competition with the loan word sign, it became restricted in use to a number of set expressions such
as love token, token of respect and so became specialized in meaning.
No systematic treatment has so far been offered for the syntagmatic semantic changes depending
on the context. But such cases do exist showing that investigation of the problem is important.
One of these is ellipsis. The qualifying words of a frequent phrase may be omitted: sale comes to
be used for cut-price sale, propose for propose marriage, be expecting for be expecting a baby, media
for mass, media. Or vice versa the core word of the phrase may seem redundant: minerals for mineral
waters, summit for summit meeting. Due to ellipsis starve which originally meant 'to die' (Germ.
sterben) came to substitute the whole phrase die of hunger, and also began to mean 'to suffer from lack
of food' and even in colloquial use 'to feel hungry'. Moreover as there are many words with transitive
and intransitive variants naming cause and result, starve came to mean 'to cause to perish with hunger'.
The newest example is encounter ‘an unexpected meeting with aliens’.
English has a great variety of these regular coincidences of different aspects, alongside with cause
and result. We could consider the coincidence of subjective and objective, active and passive aspects
especially frequent in adjectives. E.g. hateful means 'exciting hatred' and 'full of hatred'; curious
—'strange' and 'inquisitive'; pitiful — 'exciting compassion' and 'compassionate'. One can be doubtful
about a doubtful question, in a healthy climate children are healthy. To refer to these cases linguists
employ the term conversives.
 EXTRALINGUISTIC CAUSES OF SEMANTIC CHANGE
The extralinguistic causes are determined by the social nature of the language: they are observed
in changes of meaning resulting from the development of the notion expressed and the thing named and
by the appearance of new notions and things. In other words, extralinguistic causes of semantic change
are connected with the development of the human mind as it moulds reality to conform with its needs.
Languages are powerfully influenced by social, political, economic, cultural and technical change.
The effect of those factors upon linguistic phenomena is studied by sociolinguistics. It shows that social
factors can influence even structural features of linguistic units: terms of science, for instance, have a
number of specific features as compared to words used in other spheres of human activity.
The word being a linguistic realization of notion, it changes with the progress of human
consciousness. This process is reflected in the development of lexical meaning. As the human mind
achieves an ever more exact understanding of the world of reality and the objective relationships that
characterize it, the notions become more and more exact reflections of real things. The history of the
social, economic and political life of the people, the progress of culture and science bring about changes
in notions and things influencing the semantic aspect of language. For instance, OE eorde meant 'the
ground under people's feet', 'the soil' and 'the world of man' as opposed to heaven that was supposed to be
inhabited first by Gods and later on, with the spread of Christianity, by God, his angels, saints and the
souls of the dead. With the progress of science earth came to mean the third planet from the sun and the
knowledge is constantly enriched. With the development of electrical engineering earth n means 'a
connection of a wire conductor with the earth', either accidental (with the result of leakage of current) or
intentional (as for the purpose of providing a return path). There is also a corresponding verb earth. E.g.:
With earthed appliances the continuity of the earth wire ought to be checked.
The word space meant 'extent of time or distance' or 'intervening distance'. Alongside this
meaning a new meaning developed 'the limitless and indefinitely great expanse in which all material
objects are located'. The phrase outer space was quickly ellipted into space. C f. spacecraft, space-suit,
space travel, etc.
The tendency to use technical imagery is increasing in every language, thus the expression to
spark off in chain reaction is almost international. Live wire 'one carrying electric current' used
figuratively about a person of intense energy seems purely English, though.
Other international expressions are black box and feedback. Black box formerly a term of aviation
and electrical engineering is now used figuratively to denote any mechanism performing intricate
functions or any unit of which we know the effect but not the components or principles of action.
Feedback a cybernetical term meaning 'the return of a sample of the output of a system or process
to the input, especially with the purpose of automatic adjustment and control' is now widely used
figuratively meaning 'response'.
Some technical expressions that were used in the first half of the 19th century tend to become
obsolete: the English used to talk of people being galvanized into activity, or going full steam ahead but
the phrases sound dated now.
Sociolinguistics also teaches that power relationships are reflected in vocabulary changes. In all
the cases of pejoration that were mentioned above, such as boor, churl, villain, etc., it was the ruling class
that imposed evaluation. The opposite is rarely the case. One example deserves attention though: sir + -ly
used to mean 'masterful' and now surly means 'rude in a bad-tempered way'.
Lots of scientists nowadays think that power relationships in English are not confined to class
stratification, that male domination is reflected in the history of English vocabulary, in the ways in which
women are talked about. There is a rich vocabulary of affective words denigrating women, who do not
conform to the male ideal. A few examples may be mentioned. Hussy is a reduction of ME huswif
(housewife), it means now 'a woman of low morals' or 'a bold saucy girl'; doll is not only a toy but is also
used about a kept mistress or about a pretty and silly woman; wench formerly referred to a female child,
later a girl of the rustic or working class and then acquired derogatory connotations. At the end of the 20 th
century, though, due to the feminist movement, the opposite tendency is being observed when handsome
is no longer rendered just to men, and the words like steward-person (instead of stewardess), barperson
(instead of barman) and business-person (instead of businessman or businesswoman) came into use. The
main motivation of such-like transformations lies in shifting the accent from the sex of the named person
to his/her occupation.
The phenomenon of euphemism (Gr euphemismos < eu 'good' and pheme 'voice') or politically
correct language with peoples of developed culture and civilization is dictated by social usage, etiquette,
advertising, tact, diplomatic considerations and political reasons.
From the semasiological point of view euphemism is important, because meanings with
unpleasant connotations appear in words formerly neutral as a result of their repeated use instead of
words that are for some reason unmentionable, cf. deceased 'dead', deranged 'mad', intellectually
challenged ‘stupid’, pupils with special needs ‘retarded’, etc.
In terms of politics, it is decidedly less emotional to call countries with a low standard of living
underdeveloped, but it seemed more tactful to call them developing. The latest term is Third World
countries. Lots of euphemisms appeared because of the vast migration processes in the world and growth
of people’s self-respect. Thus e.g. negro, gipsy, etc. are considered taboo, giving way to Afro-American,
Roman or Rom.
Other euphemisms are dictated by a wish to give more dignity to a profession. Some barbers
called themselves hair stylists and even hairologists, airline stewards and stewardesses become flight
attendants, maids become house workers, foremen become supervisors, etc.
Euphemisms may be dictated by publicity needs, hence ready-tailored and ready-to-wear clothes
instead of ready-made. The fist-class air tickets are called business and the second economy class.
If we now turn to the history of the language, we see economic causes are obviously at work in the
semantic development of the word wealth. It first meant 'well-being', 'happiness' from weal from OE wela
whence well. This original meaning is preserved in the compounds commonwealth and commonweal. The
present meaning became possible due to the role played by money both in feudal and bourgeois society.
The chief wealth of the early inhabitants of Europe being the cattle, OE feoh means both 'cattle' and
'money', likewise Goth faihu; Lat pecus meant 'cattle' and pecunia meant 'money'. ME fee-house is both a
cattle-shed and a treasury. The present-day English fee most frequently means the price paid for services
to a lawyer or a physician. It appears to develop jointly from the above-mentioned OE feoh and the
Anglo-French fee, fie, probably of the same origin, meaning 'a recompense' and 'a feudal tenure'. This
modern meaning is obvious in the following example: Physicians of the utmost fame were called at once,
but when they came they answered as they took their fees, "There is no cure for this disease." (Belloc)
The constant development of industry, agriculture, trade and transport bring into being new
objects and new notions. Words to name them are either borrowed or created from material already
existing in the language and it often happens that new meanings are thus acquired by old words. One of
the most influential factors, which crucially changed the semantics of a vast range of English words, is the
revolution on informational technologies. Such words as boost, download, file, folder, site, on-/off-line,
cash, compact, worm, virus, spy, log etc. in computing have acquired new meanings.
 Lecture 10

HOMONYMS. SYNONYMS. ANTONYMS

HOMONYMS: WORDS OF THE SAME FORM

Homonyms are words which are identical in sound and spelling, or, at least, in one of these
aspects, but different in their meaning.
E.g.
bank, n. — a shore
bank, n. — an institution for receiving, lending, exchanging, and safeguarding money
ball, n.—a sphere; any spherical body
ball, n. — a large dancing party
English vocabulary is rich in such pairs and even groups of words. Their identical forms are
mostly accidental: the majority of homonyms coincided due to phonetic changes, which they suffered
during their development.
Groups of synonyms and pairs of antonyms are created by the vocabulary system with a particular
purpose whereas homonyms are accidental creations, and therefore purposeless. In the process of
communication they are more of an encumbrance, leading sometimes to confusion and misunderstanding.
Yet it is this very characteristic which makes them one of the most important sources of popular
humour. The pun is a joke based upon the play upon words of similar form but different meaning (i. e. on
homonyms) as in the following:
"A tailor guarantees to give each of his customers a perfect fit."
(The joke is based on the homonyms: I. fit, n.—perfectly fitting clothes; II. fit, n.—a nervous
spasm.)
Homonyms which are the same in sound and spelling (as the examples given in the beginning of
this chapter) are traditionally termed homonyms proper.
Homophones are the same in sound but different in spelling. Here are some examples of
homophones:
night, n.—knight, n.; piece, n. —peace, n.; scent, n.— cent, n.—sent, v. (past indef., past part, of to
send); rite, n.— to write, v.—right, adj.; sea, n.—to see, v.—C [si:] (the name of a letter).
The third type of homonyms is called homographs. These are words, which are the same in
spelling but different in sound. .
E. g,
to bow [bau], v.— to incline the head or body in salutation
bow [bou], n. — a flexible strip of wood for propelling arrows
to lead [li: d], v. — to conduct on the way, go before to show the way
lead [led], n. — a heavy, rather soft metal

SOURCES OF HOMONYMS
One source of homonyms has already been mentioned: phonetic changes, which words undergo in
the course of their historical development. As a result of such changes, two or more words, which were
formerly pronounced differently may develop identical sound forms and thus become homonyms.
Night and knight, for instance, 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: O. E. kniht (cf. O. E. niht). A
more complicated change of form brought together another pair of homonyms: to knead (O. E. cnedan)
and to need (O. E. neodian).
In Old English the verb to write had the form writan, and the adjective right had the forms reht,
riht.
Borrowing is another source of homonyms. A borrowed word may, in the final stage of its
phonetic adaptation, duplicate in form either a native word or another borrowing. So, in the group of
homonyms rite, n. — to write, v. — right, adj. the second and third words are of native origin whereas
rite is a Latin borrowing (< Lat. ritus).
 Word-building also contributes significantly to the growth of homonymy, and the most important
type in this respect is undoubtedly conversion. Such pairs of words as comb, n.— to comb, v., pale, adj.—
to pale, v., to make, v. — make, n. are numerous in the vocabulary. Homonyms of this type, which are the
same in sound and spelling but refer to different categories of parts of speech, are called lexico-
grammatical homonyms.
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, etc." 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.
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").
The above-described sources of homonyms have one important feature in common. In all the
mentioned cases the homonyms developed from two or more different words, and their similarity is
purely accidental. (In this respect, conversion certainly presents an exception for in pairs of homonyms
formed by conversion one word of the pair is produced from the other: a find < to find.)
Now we come to a further source of homonyms, which differs essentially from all the above
cases. Two or more homonyms can originate from different meanings of the same word when, for some
reason, the semantic structure of the word breaks into several parts. This type of formation of homonyms
is called split polysemy.
From what has been said in Lecture 2 about polysemantic words, it should have become clear that
the semantic structure of a polysemantic word presents a system within which all its constituent meanings
are held together by logical associations. In most cases, the function of the arrangement and the unity is
determined by one of the meanings (e. g. the meaning "flame" in the noun fire — see p. 102). If this
meaning happens to disappear from the word's semantic structure, associations between the rest of the
meanings may be severed, the semantic structure loses its unity and falls into two or more parts which
then become accepted as independent lexical units. Let us consider the history of three homonyms:
board, n.—a long and thin piece of timber
board, n.—daily meals, esp. as provided for pay, e. g. room and board
board, n.—an official group of persons who direct or supervise some activity, e. g. a board of
directors
It is clear that the meanings of these three words are in no way associated with one another. Yet,
most larger dictionaries still enter a meaning of board that once held together all these other meanings "a
table". It developed from the meaning "a piece of timber" by transference based on contiguity (association
of an object and the material from which it is made). The meanings "meals" and "an official group of
persons" developed from the meaning "table", also by transference based on contiguity: meals are easily
associated with a table on which they are served; an official group of people in authority are also likely to
discuss their business round a table.
Nowadays, however, the item of furniture, on which meals are served and round which boards of
directors meet, is no longer denoted by the word board but by the French Norman borrowing table, and
board in this meaning, though still registered by some dictionaries, can very well be marked as archaic as
it is no longer used in common speech. Consequently, the semantic structure of board was split into three
units.

CLASSIFICATION OF HOMONYMS
The subdivision of homonyms into homonyms proper, homophones and homographs is certainly
not precise enough and does not reflect certain important features of these words, and, most important of
all, their status as parts of speech. The examples given in the beginning of this chapter show that
homonyms may belong both to the same and to different categories of parts of speech. Obviously, a
classification of homonyms should reflect this distinctive feature. Also, the paradigm of each word should
be considered, because it has been observed that the paradigms of some homonyms coincide completely,
and of others only partially.
Accordingly, Professor A. I. Smirnitsky classified homonyms into two large classes: I. full
homonyms, II. partial homonyms
 Full lexical homonyms are words, which represent the same category of parts of speech and have
the same paradigm.
E. g. match, n. — a game, a contest; match, n.—a short piece of wood used for producing fire
Partial homonyms are subdivided into three subgroups:
A. Partial lexical homonyms are words of the same category of parts of speech, which are
identical only in their corresponding forms.
E. g. to lie (lay, lain), v. to lie (lied, lied), v.
to hang (hung, hung), v. to hang (hanged, hanged), v.
to can (canned, canned) (I) can (could)
B. Simple lexico-grammatical partial homonyms are words, which belong to the same part of
speech. Their paradigms have one identical form, but it is never the same form, as will be seen from the
examples.
E. g.
(to), found, v. - found, v. (past indef., past part, of to find)
to lay, v. - lay, v. (past indef. of to lie)
to bound, v. - bound, v. (past indef., past part. of to bind)
C. Complex lexico-grammatical partial homonyms are words of different parts of speech which
have one identical form in their paradigms.
E. g.
rose, n. - rose, v. (past indef. of to rise)
maid, n. - made, v. (past indef., past part. of to make)
left, adj. - left, v. (past indef., past part, of to leave)

SYNONYMS: ARE THEIR MEANINGS THE SAME OR DIFFERENT?

Synonymy is one of modern linguistic 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.
In the following extract, in which a young woman rejects a proposal of marriage, the verbs like,
admire and love, all describe feelings of attraction, approbation, fondness:
"I have always liked you very much, I admire your talent, but, forgive me, — I could never love
you as a wife should love her husband."
(From The Shivering Sands by V. Halt)
Yet, each of the three verbs, though they all describe more or less the same feeling of liking,
describes it in its own way: "I like you, i. e. I have certain warm feelings towards you, but they are not
strong enough for me to describe them as "love" — so that like and love are in a way opposed to each
other.
The duality of synonyms is, probably, their most confusing feature: they are somewhat the same,
and yet they are most obviously different. Both aspects of their dual characteristics are essential for them
to perform their function in speech, revealing different aspects, shades and variations of the same
phenomenon.

CRITERIA OF SYNONYMY
There is still no certainty, 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.
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.
A group of synonyms may be studied with the help of their dictionary definitions (definitional
analysis). In this work the data from various dictionaries are analysed comparatively. After that the
definitions are subjected to transformational operations (transformational analysis). In this way, the
semantic components of each analysed word are singled out. E.g. look, stare, gaze, glare, glance, peer.
 TYPES OF SYNONYMS
The only existing classification system for synonyms was established by Academician V. V.
Vinogradov the famous Soviet scholar. In his classification system there are three types of synonyms:
ideographic (which he defined as words conveying the same notion but differing in shades of meaning),
stylistic (differing in stylistic characteristics) and absolute (coinciding in all their shades of meaning and
in all their stylistic characteristics).
However, 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. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to
include absolute synonyms, which are a temporary exception, in the system of classification.

ANTONYMS
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 of them: 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.
Lecture 11

NATIVE WORDS VERSUS LOAN WORDS

THE ORIGIN OF ENGLISH WORDS

According to this feature the word-stock may be subdivided into two main sets. The elements of
one are native, the elements of the other are borrowed.
A native word is a word, which belongs to the original English stock, as known from the earliest
available manuscripts of the Old English period. A loan word, borrowed word or borrowing is a word
taken over from another language and modified in phonemic shape, spelling, paradigm or meaning
according to the standards of the English language.
The native words are further subdivided by diachronic linguistics into those of the Indo-European
stock and those of Common Germanic origin. The words having cognates in the vocabularies of different
Indo-European languages form the oldest layer. It has been noticed that they readily fall into definite
semantic groups. Among them we find terms of kinship: father, mother, son, daughter, brother; words
naming the most important objects and phenomena of nature: sun, moon, star, wind, water, wood, hill,
stone, tree; names of animals and birds: bull, cat, crow, goose, wolf; parts of the human body: arm, ear,
eye, foot, heart, etc. Some of the most frequent verbs are also of Indo-European common stock: bear,
come, sit, stand and others. The adjectives of this group denote concrete physical properties: hard, quick,
slow, red, white. Most numerals also belong here.
A much bigger part of this native vocabulary layer is formed by words of the Common Germanic
stock, i.e. of words having parallels in German, Norwegian, Dutch, Icelandic, etc., but none in Ukrainian
or French. It contains a greater number of semantic groups. The following list may serve as an illustration
of their general character. The nouns are: summer, winter, storm, rain, ice, ground, bridge, house, shop,
room, coal, iron, lead, cloth, hat, shirt, shoe, care, evil, hope, life, need, rest; the verbs are bake, burn,
buy, drive, hear, keep, learn, make, meet, rise, see, send, shoot and many more; the adjectives are: broad,
dead, deaf, deep. Many adverbs and pronouns also belong to this layer.
Together with the words of the common Indo-European stock these Common Germanic words
form the bulk of the most frequent elements used in any style of speech. They constitute no less than 80%
of the 500 most frequent words of English.
Words belonging to the subsets of the native word-stock are for the most part characterized by a
wide range of lexical and grammatical valency, high frequency value and a developed polysemy; they are
often monosyllabic, show great word-building power and enter a number of set expressions.
For example, watch<OE wasccan is one of the 500 most frequent English words. It may be used
as a verb in more than ten different sentence patterns, with or without object and adverbial modifiers and
combined with different classes of words. Its valency is thus of the highest. Examples (to cite but a few)
are as follows: Are you going to play or only watch (the others play)? He was watching the crowd go by.
Watch me carefully. He was watching for the man to leave the house. The man is being watched by the
police.
The noun watch may mean 'the act of watching', 'the guard' (on ships), 'a period of duty for part of
the ship's crew', 'a period of wake-fulness', 'close observation', 'a time-piece', etc.
Watch is the centre of a numerous word-family: watch-dog, watcher, watchful, watchfulness,
watch-out, watchword, etc. Some of the set expressions containing this root are: be on the watch, watch
one's step, keep watch, watchful as a hawk. There is also a proverb The watched pot never boils, used
when people show impatience or are unduly worrying.
The part played by borrowings in the vocabulary of a language depends upon the history of each
given language, being conditioned by direct linguistic contacts and political, economic and cultural rela-
tionships between nations. English history contains innumerable occasions for all types of such contacts.
It is the vocabulary system of each language that is particularly responsive to every change in the life of
the speaking community. Nowhere, perhaps, is the influence of extra-linguistic social reality so obvious
as in the etymological composition of the vocabulary. The source, the scope and the semantic sphere of
the loan words are all dependent upon historical factors. The very fact that up to 70% of the English
vocabulary consist of loan words, and only 30% of the words are native is due to specific conditions of
the English language development. The Roman invasion, the introduction of Christianity, the Danish and
Norrnan conquests, and, in modern times, the specific features marking the development of British
colonialism and imperialism combined to cause important changes in the vocabulary.
The term "source of borrowing" should be distinguished from the term "origin of borrowing". The
first should be applied to the language from which the loan word was taken into English. The second, on
the other hand, refers to the language to which the word may be traced. Thus, the word paper<Fr
papier<Lat papyrus<Gr papyros has French as its source of borrowing and Greek as its origin. It may be
observed that several of the terms for items used in writing show their origin in words denoting the raw
material. Papyros is the name of a plant; c.f. book<OE hoc 'the beech tree' (boards of which were used
for writing).

ASSIMILATION OF LOAN WORDS

The term assimilation of a loan word is used to denote a partial or total conformation to the
phonet-ical, graphical and morphological standards of the receiving language and its semantic system.
The degree of assimilation depends upon the length of period during which the word has been used in the
receiving language, upon its importance for communication purpose and its frequency. Oral borrowings
due to personal contacts are assimilated more completely and more rapidly than literary borrowings, i.e.
borrowings through written speech.
A classification of loan words according to the degree of assimilation can be only very general as
no rigorous procedure for measuring it has so far been developed. The following three groups may be
suggested: completely assimilated loan words, partially assimilated loan words and unassimilated loan
words or barbarisms. The group of partially assimilated words may be subdivided depending on the
aspect that remains unaltered, i.e. according to whether the word retains features of spelling, pronun-
ciation, morphology or denotation (when the word denotes some specific realia) that are not English. The
third group is not universally accepted, as it may be argued that words not changed at all cannot form part
of the English vocabulary, because they occur in speech only, but do not enter the language.
I. Completely assimilated loan words are found in all the layers of older borrowings. They may
belong to the first layer of Latin borrowings, e. g. cheese, street, wall or wine. Among Scandinavian loan
words we find such frequent nouns as husband, fellow, gate, root, wing; such verbs as call, die, take,
want and adjectives like happy, ill, low, odd and wrong. Completely assimilated French words are ex-
tremely numerous and frequent. Suffice it to mention such everyday words as table and chair, face and
figure, finish and matter. A considerable number of Latin words borrowed during the revival of learning
are at present almost indistinguishable from the rest of the vocabulary. Neither animal nor article differ
noticeably from native words. The number of completely assimilated loan words is many times greater
than the number of partially assimilated ones. They follow all morphological, phonetical and orthographic
standards. Being very frequent and stylistically neutral, they may occur as dominant words in synonymic
groups. They take an active part in word-formation. Moreover, their morphological structure and
motivation remain transparent, so that they are morphologically analysable and therefore supply the
English vocabulary not only with free forms but also with bound forms, as affixes are easily perceived
and separated in series of loan words that contain them. Such are, for instance, the French suffixes -age,
-ance and -ment, and the English modification of French -esse and -fier, which provide speech material
to produce hybrids like shortage, goddess, hindrance, and endearment. The free forms, on the other hand,
are readily combined with native affixes, e. g. pained, painful, painfully, painless, painlessness, all
formed from pain<Fr peine<Lai poena >Gr poine 'penalty'. The subject of hybrids has already been dealt
with in the chapter on derivation (see p.p. 106-107).
II. The second group containing partially assimilated loan words can be subdivided into
subgroups. The oppositions are equipollent.
(a) Loan words not assimilated semantically, because they denote objects and notions specific for
the country from which they come. They may denote foreign clothing: mantilla, sombrero; foreign titles
and professions: shah, rajah, sheik, bei, toreador; foreign vehicles: caique (Turkish), rickshaw (Chinese);
food and drinks: pilaw (Persian), sherbet (Arabian); foreign currency: krone (Denmark), rupee (India),
zloty (Poland), peseta (Spain), hrivna (Ukraine), etc.
(b) Loan words not assimilated grammatically, for example, nouns borrowed from Latin or Greek
which keep their original plural forms: bacillus : : bacilli; crisis : : crises; formula : : formulae; index : :
indices; phenomenon : : phenomena. Some of these are also used in English plural forms, but in that case
there may be a difference in lexical meaning, as in indices : : indexes.
(c) Loan words not completely assimilated phonetically. The French words borrowed after 1650
afford good examples. Some of them keep the accent on the final syllable: machine, cartoon, police.
Others, alongside with peculiarities in stress, contain sounds or combinations of sounds that are not
standard for the English language and do not occur in native words. The examples are: [3] — bourgeois,
camouflage, prestige, regime, sabotage; [WA:] — as in memoir, or the nasalized [a], [o] — melange. In
many cases it is not the sounds but the whole pattern of the word's phonetic make-up that is different from
the rest of the vocabulary, as in some of the Italian and Spanish borrowings: confetti, incognito,
macaroni, opera, sonata, soprano and tomato, potato, tobacco.
The pronunciation of words where the process of assimilation is phonetically incomplete will
often vary, as in t'foiei] or ['fwaje] for foyer and ['bu:lva:], ['bu:hva:], ['bu:lava:], ['bu:lva:d] for
boulevard. Eight different pronunciations are registered by D. Jones for the word fiance.L
(d) Loan words not completely assimilated graphically. This group, as V.I. Balinskaya shows, is
fairly large and variegated. There are, for instance, words borrowed from French in which the final
consonant is not pronounced, e. g. ballet, buffet, corps. Some may keep a diacritic mark: cafe, cliche.
Specifically French digraphs (ch, qu, ou, etc.) may be retained in spelling: bouquet, brioche. Some have
variant spellings.
It goes without saying that these sets are intersecting, i.e. one and the same loan word often shows
incomplete assimilation in several respects simultaneously.
III. The third group of borrowings comprises the so-called barbarisms, i.e. words from other
languages used by English people in conversation or in writing but not assimilated in any way, and for
which there are corresponding English equivalents. The examples are the Italian addio, ciao 'good-bye',
the French affiche for 'placard' and coup or coup d'Etat 'a sudden seizure of state power by a small group',
the Latin ad libitum 'at pleasure' and the like.
1
"The Concise English Dictionary" contains a specific appendix of non-English words indicating
their anglicized and foreign pronunciation.
The incompleteness of assimilation results in some specific features which permit us to judge of
the origin of words. They may serve as formal indications of loan words of Greek, Latin, French or other
origin.