Sources of synonyms

1. borrowing

Quite a number of Ws in synonymic sets are usu of Latin or French origin (set includes both native & borrowed Ws)

Often double-scale patterns: native vs Latin ý bodily-corporal, brotherly-fraternal

Native vs Greek or French ý answer-reply, fiddle-violin

Stylistic reference may differ: native Ws are usu colloquial, borrowed often bookish or highly literary ý see aboveá

2. T law of synonymic attraction- interests of T community tend to attract a large number of synonyms

ý in Beowulf there are 37 syn-s for ‘hero’ & at least a dozen for battle & fight

in mod Am Eng»20 Ws denoting money ý bucks, beans, do-re-mi,

рус: деньги, мани, лаве, капуста, бабки…

3. radiation of synonyms – when a particular W is given a transferred M its syn-s tend to develop along parallel lines

ý get à understand, grasp à understand

T bulk of synonyms may be referred to stylistically marked Ws см пример про деньги

T can’t be identical as T same referent in dif speech situations can be denoted by dif Ws

ý woman-mother by her son or wife by her husband

u Ws interchangeable in any given context are very rare

ý buy & purchase are dif in their stylistic reference – not completely interchangeable

31. Semantic contrasts and antonymy.

Antonyms – Ws dif in sound form characterized by dif types of semantic contrast of T denotational M & interchangeable at least in some contexts

Perfect or complete synonyms are rare

Kind vs cruel – completely opposed to each other

Kind vs unkind (not necessarily cruel)– there is no polarity of M as here semantic opposition is confined to simple negation

Types of Antonyms

1. contradictories – to use one of T terms is to contradict T other = + not (+admit of no possibility betw them)

ý dead-alive(not dead), single-married, perfect-imperfect

+ a subgroup – Ws which don’t represent absolute values –to use one of T terms is to imply comparison with some norm – ‘young’-relatively young

ý young-old, big-small

T! one member of each pair can function as T unmarked or generic term for T common quality involved in both members: age, size ý the old

2. contraries – admit of possibilities (intermediate members betw them)

ý cold -cool-warm- hot

3. incompatibles – antonyms with T common component of M- T reverse of hyponymy

ý morning-afternoon-evening-night + colour terms: red-black-blue...

! red-scarlet hyponymy!!!

T negation of one member of this set doesn’t imply T semantic equivalence with T other but excludes T possibility of T other Ws of this set

Interchangeability in certain contexts is typical of antonyms as well as of synonyms

ý a wet short – a dry shirt

Antonyms are not necessarily interchangeable in all contexts

ý dry-damp-wet-moist dry air-damp air; dry lips-moist

32. What is a paradigm? Paradigmatic and syntagmatic approaches to the study

of meaning.

Syntagmatic r-s: show how a w-d is used in the context, in speech, with other w-ds in the flow of speech.

Paradygmatic r-s: show how a w-d is related to other w-ds. Paradygm = the position of a word in the s-m of a L.

Grammar par. = the sys showing a w-d in all its forms.

Ex. litter (small pieces of rubbish/garbage that people have left lying in a public place), waste (materials that are no longer needed), refuse (waste material that has been thrown away), rubbish (things that you throw away because you no longer want or need them + nonsense)

Ex. walk: 1) go not very fast 2) a type of movements 3) involves speed 4) human beings

to scamper: quickly run

a watch doesn’t walk, it goes

Lock up any valuables. Things tend to walk here = to be taken away, disappear

Dict-s show what is going on in a l-ge

Ex. sad = gloomy teens: not cool; to large = show off; chav = cheep & vulgar

Any one of a number of personal pronouns may occur as the subj of the s-ce therefore these pronouns form a closed sys-m. Closed sys-s are traditionally considered to be the subj matter of grammar, open sys-s such as lexico-semantic fields, hyponymic, synonymic sets, etc. are studied by lexicology.

From the discussion of the paradigmatic & syntagmatic rel-s it follows that a full understanding of the semantic str-re of any lex. item can be gained only from the study of the variety of contexts in which the word is used.

By the term " context " we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. The two main types of linguistic contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.

In lexical context of primary importance are lexical groups combined with the polysemantic words under consideration.

The adjective heavy in isolation possesses the meaning "of great weight, weighty". When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural phenomena as wind, storm, etc. it means "striking, following with force, abundant", e.g. heavy rain, wind, storm, etc. In combination with the words industry, arms, artillery and the like, heavy has the meaning "the larger kind of something as heavy industry, artillery"

In grammatical context it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. Consider the following examples: 1) I made Peter study He made her laugh

They made him work (sing, dance, write...) 2) My friend made a good teacher He made a good husband

In the pattern "to make + N(Pr)+ V inf' the word make has the meaning "to force", and in the pattern "to make + A + N" it has the meaning "to turn out to be". Here the grammatical context helps to determine the meaning of the word "to make".

So, linguistic (verbal) contexts comprise lexical and grammatical contexts. They are opposed to extra linguistic contexts (non-verbal). In extra- linguistic contexts the meaning of the word is determined not only by linguistic factors but also by the actual situation in which the word is used. F.e. I’ve got it – I possess; I understand.

33.Synchronic and diachronic approaches to variability of word meaning.

The distinction between these 2 approaches is due to the Swiss philologist F. de Saussure. First E doc-s date from the 5^th c. Went through a long history.

Diach.: watching how the L develops, its history.

The evolution of any voc-ry, as well as of its single elements, is the object of historical lexicology. This branch of ling-cs discusses the origin of various w-ds, their change & devel-nt, and investigates the linguistic and extra-linguistic forces modifying their structure, meaning and usage.

to sack: now = dismiss from service. Long ago when the craftsmen were dismissed they were given the sack to carry away the tools.

Syn.: at a certain period of time, exclusively. Descriptive lex-gy deals with the voc-ry of a given lang at a given stage of its devel-nt. It studies the func­tions of w-ds & their specific structure as a characteristic inherent in the sys-m.

The synchronic approach aims to register various m-ngs of a polysemantic w-d, its value & the character of rel-s b/n w-ds such w-ds at a current period of time. In the synchr. appr. m-ngs can be divided into basic & central. In the syncr. appr. polysemy is a co-existence of the various m-ngs of a w-d at a certain period of time. In connection with the polysemantic w-d table we are mainly concerned with the following problems: are all the mean­ings equally representative of the semantic structure of this w-d? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that first occurs to us is'an article of furniture'. It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, minor meanings are observed only in cer­tain contexts, e.g. 'to keep the table amused', 'table of contents' and so on. As to other meanings of this w-d we find it hard to grade them in order of their com­parative value.

The diachronic approach aims at historical development, change of a m-ng of a semantic str-re, studies the process of it. In the diachr. appr. m-ngs can be divided into primary & secondary. In the diachr. appr. polysemy is a historical change in the semantic str-re of a w-d (the disappearance of some m-ngs & the appearance of new ones). In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the w-d table we find that of all the meanings it has in Modern E., the primary meaning is 'a flat slab of stone or wood' which is proper to the w-d in the Old E. period; all other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning.

34. The basic principles of grouping words together.

The sys-m is shifting.

3 basic options how to classify voc-ry:

1) formal approach

a) alphabetic

b) B + er -> N (according to a pattern)

c) acc. to the rule

(full hand - cluster)

2) on the basis of semantic rel-s b/n w-ds

Core

synonyms

antomyms

lexico - semantical groups unite w-ds by 1 general idea/concept

Ex. mental abilities of a person (capable, clever, bright, shrewd, smart)

cats (cheetah, puma, jaguar)

Fields

Ex. motion (~ 1000)

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

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

3) associative (in speech)

All parts of speech

co-occurrence of w-ds in the text

Ex. burning/pressing matter

sky – sun – blue – rain – bright

W-ds in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the w-ds, e.g. tree- grow- green; journey- train- taxi- bags. These w-ds do not possess any common denominator of m-ng. Contextual associations are usually conditioned by the context of situation. When watching a play, for e.g., we naturally speak of the actors who act the main parts, of good [bad] staging of the play, of the wonderful scenery and so on.

The purpose of singling out sem. correlates: we single out to see the sys-m of a L-ge, to understand the m-ng of the w-d, to compile a dic-ry.

35. Valency and collocability. Types of valency. Extralinguistic and linguistic restrictions on collocability.

Combinability (collocation) = valency

All w-ds in a L-ge form w-d groups & s-ces if w-d comb-s don’t violate syntax. Ex. a smiles child – syntax is violated. It’s possible to say ‘a child smiles’. The correct syntax isn’t enough for a w-d group to be correct & accepted. Chomsly: green ideas sleep furiously (the syntax is perfect, but the w-ds don’t come together).

The semantic str-re of the w-ds: the sys-m of all their m-ng & the relationships b/n the m-ng. The semantic str-re of immediate phrases matters a lot. Our general knowledge of a w-d & of the world imposes certain selectional restrictions on w-d usage. W-ds make up w-d groups in speech if their semantic str-re is compatible.

Valence (valency) – the conventional mutual expectancy of w-ds in all types of w-d groups irrespective of the degree of str-ral & semantic cohesion of the components, he described by their valency (the power of a w-d to combine with another w-d in speech)

1) Gram. Valence – the aptness of a w-d to appear in a certain gram-l/synt. pattern

Gram. V. is dif-t for each part. w-d. Ex. offer – suggest (partial syn-s). The gram. V. of correlative w-ds in dif-t L-ges may differ greately. Ex. улыбаться кому-то - to smile at sb; войти в комнату - enter the room

2) Lex.Valence – the aptness of a w-d to appear in certain comb-s with other lex. units

Ex. to shrug + one’s shoulders (only)

Comp.: to lift/raise one’s arms (close syn-s, interchangeable)

But: to raise a flag (поднять флаг)

to pick up () – to lift () – to raise a q-n (not an obj) – not to lift a finger to help sb – to raise money

Even close syn-s differ in their lex. Val.

Across L-ges:

Rus Eng

комнатные цветы indoor flowers

украшать decorate (a cake)

to dress (a table)

to garnish (a salad)

The range of the lexical valency of w-ds is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the E. w-d-stock. This can be easily ob­served in the selection of synonyms found in different w-d-groups. Though the verbs lift and raise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question. There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each w-d and any departure from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic device. W-ds habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché. We observe, for example, that the verb put forward and the noun ques­tion are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verb put forward or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate the w-d question. So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual w-d-group, a kind of cliché.

One more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical valency—the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in w-d-groups. Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of w-ds may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of w-d-groups. The adjective heavy, e.g., is combined with the w-ds food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning 'rich and difficult to digest. But not all the w-ds with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is diffi­cult to digest. There is certain norm of lexical valency for each w-d and any intentional departure from this norm is qualified as a stylistic device, e.g.: tons of w-ds, a life ago, years of dust. W-ds tend to make up cliches or traditional w-d combinations. (e.g.: to wage a war, to render a service, to make friends). W-ds in traditional combinations are combined according to the patterns of grammatical structure of the given l-ge.

Secondly it is observed that different meanings of a w-d may be described through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through the lexical valency of the w-d, for example, the different meanings of the adjective heavy may be described through the w-d-groups heavy weight (book, table, etc.), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.), heavy drinker (eater, etc.), heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.), heavy industry (tanks, etc.), and so on. From this point of view w-d-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the w-d.

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

The grammatical valen cy of w-ds may be different. The range of it is delimited by the part of speech the w-d belongs to. This is not to imply that grammatical valency of w-ds belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical. This can be best illustrated by the two synonymous verbs suggest and propose. Both verbs can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan, a resolution). It is only propose, however, that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.) Also: the two synonyms clever and intelligent are said to posses different grammatical valency as the w-d clever can fit the syntactic pattern of Adj. + preposition at + N clever at physics, clever at social sciences, whereas the w-d intelligent can never be found in exactly the same syntactic pattern.

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

A full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the w-d is used, i.e. from the study of the intralingulstic relations of w-ds in the flow of speech. The term context is the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the w-d. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. Meanings of polysemantic w-ds observed only in certain contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (or verbal) contexts or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts. The meaning at the level of lexical contexts is sometimes described as meaning by collocation.

The two more or less universally recognized main types of linguistic contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of w-ds are the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are differenti­ated depending on, whether the lexical or the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning. In lexical contexts of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic w-d under consideration. The adjective heavy, e.g., in isolation is understood as meaning 'of great weight, weighty' (heavy load, heavy table, etc.). When combined with the lexical group of w-ds denoting natural phenomena such as wind, storm, snow, etc., it means 'striking, falling with force, abundant' as can be seen from the contexts, e.g. heavy rain, wind, snow, storm, etc. In combination with the w-ds industry, arms, artillery -and the like, heavy has the meaning 'the larger kind of something' as in heavy industry, heavy artillery, etc. It can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing out this or that individual meaning of the w-ds is the lexical meaning of the w-ds with which they are combined. This can be also proved by the fact that when we want to describe the individual meaning of a polysemantic w-d, we find it sufficient to use this w-d in combination with some members of acertain lexical group. To describe the meanings of the w-d handsome, for example, it is sufficient to combine it with the follow­ing w-ds—a) man, person, b) size, reward, sum. The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically (or phraseologically) bound meanings which imply that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical contexts. Some linguists go so far as to assert that w-d-meaning in general can be analysed through its collocability with other w-ds. They hold the view that if we know all the possible collocations (or w-d-groups) into which a polysemantic w-d can enter, we know all its meanings. Thus, the meanings of the adjective heavy, for instance, may be analysed through its collocability with the w-ds weight, safe, table; snow, wind, rain; industry, artillery, etc.

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic w-d. One of the meanings of the verb make, e.g. 'to force, to enduce', is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do something or in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun and the in­finitive of some other verb (to make smb. laugh, go, work, etc.). Another meaning of this verb 'to become', 'to turn out to be' is observed in the contexts of a different structure, i.e. make followed by an adjective and a noun (to make a good wife, a good teacher, etc.). Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically (or structurally) bound meanings. Cases of the type she will make a good teacher may be referred to as syntactically bound meanings, because the syntactic function of the verb make in this particular context (a link verb, part of the predicate) is indicative of its meaning 'to become, to turn out to be'. A different syntactic function of the verb, e.g. which of the predicate (to make machines, tables, etc.) excludes the possibility of the meaning 'to become, turn out to be'.

In a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the grammatical aspects should be taken into consideration.

36.Free word-groups as compared to phraseological units. Classification of

word-groups according to their motivation.

Phraseological units: idioms, ready-made idiomatic combinations, lexicalized w-d comb-s.

Phraseology is the branch of L-cs that studies idioms.

In lexicology there is great ambiguity of the terms phraseology and idioms. Opinions differ as to how phraseology should be defined, classified, described and analysed.

- the expressions where the meaning of one element is dependent on the other (V.V. Vinogradov);

- set expressions which do not possess expressiveness or emotional colouring (A.I. Smirnitsky)

- imaginative, expressive and emotional (I.V.Arnold).

- fixed context units (N.N. Amosova) calls such expressions

A.V. Koonin lays stress on the structural separateness of the elements in a phraseological unit, on the change of meaning in the whole as compared with its elements taken separately and on a certain minimum stability.

In E. and American linguistics no special branch of study exists, and the term "phraseology" has a stylistic meaning, according to Webster's dictionary 'mode of expression, peculiarities of diction’

Syntax investigates w-d comb-s. All w-ds in all types of w-d groups have certain lex. & gram. restrictions & a certain gram. str-re char-tic of a L-ge.

The smallest two-facet unit to be found within the w-d is the morpheme which is studied on the morphological level of analysis. The largest two-facet lex. unit comprising more than one w-d is the w-d group observed on the syntagmatic level of analysis of the various ways w-ds are joined together to make up single self-contained lex. units.

Free w-d-groups - any group of syntactically connected notional w-ds within a sentence, which by itself is not a sentence. The component members in other w-d groups, f.e. a week ago, kind to people, to cause misunderstanding, to shine brightly, linguistic phenomenon seem to possess greater semantic & str-ral independence. W-d groups of this type are defined as free or variable w-d groups or phrases and are studied in syntax. They are freely made up in speech by the speakers according to the needs of communication.

Some w-d groups, f.e. at least, a point of view, cooked goose, to stew in one's own juice, seem to be functionally and semantically inseparable. Such w-d groups are usually described as set-phrases, w-d equivalents or phraseological units. They are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of the branch of lexicological science that studies phraseology. Characteristic features of phraseological units are non-motivation for idiomaticity and stability of context. The cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units.

Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semi-fixed combinations. The restriction may be independent of the ties existing in extra-linguistic reality between the object spoken of and be conditioned by purely linguistic factors, or have extralinguistic causes in the history of the people. In free w-d-combination the linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties of w-ds.

Semantically all w. grs. may be classified into motivated and non-motivated. Non-motivated w-d-groups are usually described as phraseological units or idioms.

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

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

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

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

The meaning of w-d-groups may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the components.

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

W. gr. possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. The structural pattern of w. grs. is the carrier of a certain semantic component not necessarily dependent on the actual lexical meaning of its members (school grammar – “grammar which is taught in school”, grammar school – “a type of school”). We have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of w. gr. as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents. The structure of w.grs. may be also described in relation to the head-w-d. In this case we speak of patterns of w.grs., not of formulas. So, the term pattern implies that we are speaking of the structure of the w. gr. in which a given w-d is used as its head (to build houses – to build + N).

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

The lexical and structural components of meaning in w-d-groups are interdependent and inseparable. For instance, in the w-d-group all the sun long we observe a departure from the norm of lexical valency represented by such w-d-groups as all the day long, all the night long, all the week long, and a few others. The structural pattern of these w-d-groups in ordinary usage and the w-d-group all the sun long is identical. The generalised meaning of the pattern may be described as "a unit of time". The noun sun violates the norms of collocability in this w-d-group.

37.Principles underlying the use of euphemisms.

Euphemising is the habit of avoiding an unpleasant or taboo reference by substituting some indirect word for the blunt direct one.

Pragmatic principles underlying the use of euph-ms.

The main motives for employing euphemisms are politeness, modesty, delicacy, decency, (lie desire to hide (he negative ^essence of the tiling meant. The politeness principle (PP) (J. Leech, 1983) is at work here. It includes four maxims:

i) Maxim of tact

(ii) Maxim of generosity

(iii) Maxim of approbation; and

iv) Maxim of modesty

A "Pollyana Principle" (postulating flint "participants in the conversation would prefer pleasant topics of conversation to unpleasant ones), the Cooperative Principle by II. Grice, the Hules оГ Politeness by R. LakofT (R. Lstkoff, 1973) together with PP underlie the use of euphemisms. Euphemisms may be viewed as units of language breaking the maxim of quality in the dice's CP (i.e., do not say what you believe to be false). Euphemisms do not meet the conditions of truthfulness.

Different societues operate PP and CP in different ways, e.g. giving politness a higher rating than cooperation.

The number of euphs has increased tremendously:

Euphemisms softening various types of discrimination:

a) according to age (e.g., ageing, elderly, mature, middiescence (period of life between -Id and 65) patterned on adolescence, third age (period of life after 65), senior citizen, silver ager (a middle-aged person), golden ager (pensionier), chronologically, challenged);

b) according to cllinic or racial origin (e.g., coloured, non-white, Afro-American, Afro- Caribbean, etc.);

c) according to physical and menial disorders (e.g.; backward students —"underachiever", the retarded —> "learning disabled" — > "intellectually challenged", deaf people —> "hearing impaired", fat people —> "inelabolically challenged")

d) according to professional parameter (e.g., barber - "hairstylist", hairdresser -
"hairologist", garbage collector -> "sanitation engineer", floor scrubber —} "floor
cleaner" -* "floor technician", prison guard —> "correctional officer", prison —>correctional facility)

e) according to gender (eg., fishermen—>"fishers",stewardess—>"flight attendant",
fireman —> "fire fighter", char woman — "building interior cleaner", laundresses —>
"launeres, telephone linemen and splicers — "telephone line installers and
repairers").

The use of maxims of the PP is pragmatically bound and is based on such paramMw of the wide pragmatic contexts as social, professional status of language, sex, ethnic identity, etc.

(ii) Many new euplieiiiisms are created from the fear rooted in superstition. The principle оf tabooing is at work here: e.g. to die —> "to buy the farm" (US military slang), confessional (in the catholic church) -f "room of reconciliation", the person born under the sign of Cancer —> "moon child", dead —) "negative medical response".

(iii) Euphemisms can also serve ns manipulating devices in political and military propaganda.

The regulatory principle is at work here: e.g., muss extermination of the Jews -* "final solution" (compare the use of the phrase "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia today); the Vietnam far euphemisms: distraction of an area to eliminate guerrilla activity —} "pacification", dead solder —> "body bags"; US CIA activities euphemisms: shameful secrets —} "dirty tricks" —* "family jewels"; economic life euplieiiiisms; e.g._t poor ~t "backward" ~> "underdeveloped" -> "third world/forth world" (in reference to the poorest anil least developed countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America).

38. Semantics of euphemisms.

T he inquiry into the semantic aspect of eups opens up the follg questions.

(i) What serves the semantic basis for the euphemisation?

(ii) What semantic processes are at work on the level of word meaning when the euphemism is created?

(iii) What are the main parameters determining the ability of a word to be used as a euphemism?

From the semantic point the process of ephsioon is based on the discrepancy between the positive or neutral connotations of the name and the negative essence of the referent name. From the psycological point of view the process involves setting up associative links between direct denotatum anil associative denotatum. The informative two-dimensional nature serves a perfect semantic basis for the creation of the desired positive effects. A paradoxical feature of euphemisms is that when the character or meaning of what they describe catches up with the euphemism itself, they lose their character as substitutes and come to denote the very same unpleasant fact or denotatum they were meant to disguise. Then they should be replaced by the new euphemisms.

The semantic process at work on the level of word meaning is that of pejoration. The original neutral or positive words acquire negative connotations.

The main parameters determining ability of a word to be used as a euphemism is richness of its semantic structure and abstract character of the meaning.

39.Name the main sources of phraseological units.

The main sources of native phraseological units are: terminological and professional lexics, e.g. physics: center of
gravity (центр тяжести), specific weight (удельный вес); navigation:
cut the painter (обрубить канат) — 'to become independent', lower
one's colours (спустить свой флаг) — 'to yield, to give in'; military
sphere: fall into line (стать в строй) — 'conform with others';British literature, e.g. the green-eyed monster — 'jealousy'
(W.Shakespeare); like Hamlet without the prince — 'the most
important person at event is absent' (W.Shakespeare); fall on evil
days — 'live in poverty after having enjoyed better times' (J.Milton);
a sight for sore eyes — 'a person or thing that one is extremely pleased
or relieved to see' (J.Swift); how goes the enemy? (Ch. Dickens) —
'what is the time?'; never say die — 'do not give up hope in a difficult
situation' (Ch.Dickens);

1) British traditions and customs, e.g. baker's dozen — 'a group of thirteen'. In the past British merchants of bread received from bakersthirteen loaves instead of twelve and the thirteenth loaf was merchants'profit.

2) superstitions and legends, e.g. a black sheep — 'a less successful or more immoral person in a family or a group'. People believed that a black sheep was marked by the devil; the halcyon days — 'a very happy or successful period in the past'. According to an ancient legend a halcyon (зимородок) hatches/grows its fledglings in a nest that sails in the sea
and during this period (about two weeks) the sea is completely calm; historical facts and events, personalities, e.g. as well be hanged (or hung) for a sheep as a lamb — 'something that you say when you are going to be punished for something so you decide to do something worse because your punishment will not be any more severe'. According
to an old law a person who stole a sheep was sentenced to death by hanging, so it was worth stealing something more because there was no worse punishment; to do a Thatcher — 'to stay in power as prime minister for three consecutive terms (from the former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher)';

3) phenomena and facts of everyday life, e.g. carry coals to Newcastle — 'to take something to a place where there is plenty of it available'. Newcastle is a town in Northern England where a lot of coal "'as produced; to get out of wood — 'to be saved from danger or ithculty'.

The main sources of borrowed phraseological units are: 1) the Holy Script, e.g. the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing — 'communication in an organization is bad so that one art does not know what is happening in another part'; the kiss of udas — 'any display of affection whose purpose is to conceal any act of treachery' (Matthew XXVI: 49);

2) ancient legends and myths belonging to different religious or
cultural traditions, e.g. to cut the Gordian knot — 'to deal with a
difficult problem in a strong, simple and effective way' (from the legend
saying that Gordius, king of Gordium, tied an intricate knot and
prophesied that whoever untied it would become the ruler of Asia. It
was cut through with a sword by Alexander the Great); a Procrustean
bed — 'a harsh, inhumane system into which the individual is fitted by
force, regardless of his own needs and wishes' (from Greek Mythology,
Procrustes — a robber who forced travelers to lie on a bed and made
them fit by stretching their limbs or cutting off the appropriate length
of leg);

3) facts and events of the world history, e.g. to cross the Rubicon — 'to do something which will have very important results which cannotbe changed after'. Julius Caesar started a war which resulted in victory for him by crossing the river Rubicon in Italy; to meet one's Waterloo —'be faced with, esp. after previous success, a final defeat, a difficulty or
obstacle one cannot overcome (from the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo 1815)';

4) variants of the English language, e.g. a heavy hitter — 'someone who is powerful and has achieved a lot' (American); a hole card — 'a secret advantage that is ready to use when you need it' (American); be home and hosed — 'to have completed something successfully' (Australian);

5) other languages (classical and modern), e.g. second to none — 'equal with any other and better than most' (from Latin: nulli secundus); for smb's fair eyes — 'because of personal sympathy, not be worth one's deserts, services, for nothing' (from French: pour les beaux yeux de qn.); the fair sex — 'women' (from French: le beau sex); let the cat out of the bag — 'reveal a secret carelessly or by mistake' (from German: die Katze aus dem Sack lassen); tilt at windmills — 'to waste time trying to deal with enemies or problems that do no exist' (from Spanish: acometer molinos de viento); every dog is a lion at
home — 'to feel significant in the familiar surrounding' (from Italian: ogni сапе ё leone a casa sua).

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group:

a) Most productive in Modern English is the formation of ph u by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups (e.g. «launching pad» in its terminological meaning is «стартовая площадка», in its transferred meaning - «отправной пункт», «to link up» - «cтыковаться, стыковать космические корабли» in its transformed meaning it means -«знакомиться»);

b) a large group of ph u was formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, (e.g. «granny farm» - «пансионат для престарелых»,)

c) ph.u. can be by means of alliteration,(e.g. «a sad sack» - «несчастный случай», «culture vulture» - «человек, интересующийся искусством»).

d) ph.u. can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, (e.g. «My aunt!», «Hear, hear!»)

e) ph.u. can be formed by means of distorting a word group, (e.g. «odds and ends» was formed from «odd ends»),

f) ph.u can be formed by using archaisms, (e.g. «in brown study» means «in gloomy meditation» where both components preserve their archaic meanings),

g) ph u can be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, (e.g. «that cock won’t fight» can be used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting), it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically),

h) they can be formed when we use some unreal image, (e.g. «to have butterflies in the stomach» - «испытывать волнение», «to have green fingers» -»преуспевать как садовод-любитель»).

i) ph u can be formed by using expressions of writers or politicians in everyday life, (e.g. «corridors of power» (Snow), «American dream» (Alby), «the winds of change» (Mc Millan)).

Secondary ways of forming ph u are those when a ph u is formed on the basis of another ph u; they are:

a) conversion, e.g. «to vote with one’s feet» was converted into «vote with one’s f eet»;

b) changing the grammar form, e.g. «Make hay while the sun shines» is transferred into a verbal phrase - «to make hay while the sun shines»;

c) analogy, e.g. «Curiosity killed the cat» was transferred into «Care killed the cat»;

d) contrast, e.g. «cold surgery» - «a planned before operation» was formed by contrasting it with «acute surgery», «thin cat» - «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with «fat cat»;

e) shortening of proverbs or sayings e.g. from the proverb «You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear» by means of clipping the middle of it the ph u «to make a sow’s ear» was formed with the meaning «ошибаться».

f) borrowing ph u from other languages, either as translation loans, e.g. «living space» (German), «to take the bull by the horns» (Latin) or by means of phonetic borrowings «meche blanche» (French), «corpse d’elite» (French), «sotto voce» (Italian) etc.

Phonetic borrowings among ph u refer to the bookish style and are not used very often.

40.Phraseology and its boundaries. Stability of phraseological units.

There is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from, other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed phrаsеоlоgiсаl units.

The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free оr variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined: The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words:, is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable.

However, the existing terms, е.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to а certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set - phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. The term wоrd-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.

Ph u are defined as non-motivated groups that cannot be freely msde up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. So, the eesential features of ph u are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation. It is assumed that unlike components of free word-groups which may vary according to the needs of communication, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations. (eg red in the free word-group red flower may be substituted for by any other adjective denoting colour without essentially changing the denotational meaning of the word-group under discussion. In the ph u red tap (bureaucratic methods) nо such substitution is possible, as а change of the adjective would involve а complete change in фе meaning of the whole group. А blue (black, white, etc.) tape would mean 'а tape of а certain colour => ph u is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and it exists as а ready-made linguistic unit..

It is also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is not confined to its lexical components. Grammatical structure of ph u is to а certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the word-groups red flower and red tape is identical (А+N), the noun flower may be used in the plural (red flowers), whereas nо such change is possible in the ph u. red tape, red tapes would then denote 'tapes of red colour but not 'bureaucratic methods'.

41.Principles of classification of phraseological units.

There exist various numerous classifications in Engl idioms.

1) Semantic classification of phraseological units

Phraseological units can be classified according to the degree of motivation of their meaning. This classification was suggested by acad. V.V. Vinogradov for Russian phraseological units. He pointed out three types of phraseological units:

a) fusions are completely non-motivated w grs where, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, they are highly idiomatic and cannot be translated word for word into other languages, e.g. on Shank’s mare - (on foot), at sixes and sevens - (in a mess) etc; these are w grs with a completely changed demotivated mng, the metaphor has lost its clarity and became obscure.

b) unities are w grs with a completely changed mng, the mng of the w gr doesn’t correspond to the mngs of its constituent parts BUT the metaphor is still transparent. e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), old salt (experienced sailor) etc; they are partially non-motivated

c) collocations/combinations are w grs with a partially changed mng. Usually made up of 2 open-class words and only 1 of them is used figuratively, they are clearly and fully motivated that is their mng can be easily deducted from the mng of its constituency and from common knowledge of the word, e.g. cash and carry - (self-service shop), in a big way (in great degree) etc.

Another angle from which the problem of phraseology is viewed is the so-called functional approach. This approach is suggested by Prof. - AJL Smimitsky in his monograph "Лексикология английского языка". M;, 1956. Не assumes that phraseological units may be defined as specific word-groups functioning as word-equivalents.Thefunda­mental features of phraseological units thus understood are their semantic
and grammatical inseparability, which are regarded as distinguishing
features Of isolated words. The terra "semantic inseparability" implies
that the denotational meaning belongs to the word-group as a single
semantic-ally inseparable unit and not to the components of the
phraseological unit (red tape). The term "grammatical inseparability"
implies that the grammatical meaning or, to be more exact, the part-of-
speech meaning of phraseological units is felt as belonging to the word-
group as a whole irrespective of the part-of-speech meaning of the
component words. Compare; "take a book" and "take place". We
observe that in the free word-group "take a book" the verb and the noun
preserve the part-of-speech meaning proper to these words taken in
isolation. In the phraseological unit "take place" the, part-of-speech meaning
belongs to the group as: a single whole. "Tale,place" is grammatically
equivalent to a verb. Grammatical inseparability of phraseological units
viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity enables us to regard them as
grammatically equivalent to single words.

Thus A.I. Smirrri^ky classifies phraseological units into noun equivalents (red tape), verb equivalents (to take care), (to break the-news), adverb equivalents (in the long run), adjective equivalents! (below the mark), etc.

Prof. A.I. Smimitsky suggests three classes of stereotyped phrases;

1. traditional phrases whose meaning can be derived from the meaning
of the component par's (to shrug one's shoulders);

2. phraseological combinations (to get up, to fall in love) whose metaphorical motivation is faded and

3. idioms — idiomatic (non-motivated) units which are imaginative, emotionally and stylistically eoloured (to take the bull by the horns, that's Where the shoe pinches, the cat is out of the bag). Unlike phraseological units, proverbs, sayings and quotations do not always function as word-equivalents. That is why the proponents of the functional criterion argue that proverbs and sayings lie outside the province of phraseology.

The criterion of function has also been subject to criticism. The main disputable points are as follows: 1) One and the same word-group may function in some sentences as an inseparable group (a word equivalent) and in others as a separable group with each component performing its own syntactic function. This seems largely to be accounted for by the structure of the sentence in which the word-group is used. For example, in the sentence "She took care of everything, "take care" is perceived as a single unit functioning as the predicate, whereas in the sentence "Great care was taken to keep the children happy" "take care" is undoubtedly separable into two components: the verb "take" functions as the predicate and the noun "care" — as the object. The functional unity of the word-group seems to be broken.

Phraseological units in Modern English are also approached from the contextual point of view. This approach is suggested by Prof. N.N. Amosova in her book: Основы английской фразеологии. Л., 1963.

Prof. Amosova argues that phraseological units are to be defined through specific types of context. Free word-groups make up variable contexts whereas the essential feature of phraseological units is-a non-variable or fixed context.

In such word-groups as a small town the words town and small may-'» be substituted for by a number of other nouns, e.g. room, audience, etc., the adjectives large, big can replace "small". The substitution docs not affect the meanings of the other member of the word-group (small town, large town, small room), Unlike word-groups with variable members', phraseological units allow of no substitution. In the phraseological unit "small hours" — "the early hours of the morning from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m." у — there is no variable member as "small" denotes "early" only in collocation with "hours". A non-variable context is indicative of a specialised meaning of one of the member-words. It follows that specialised meaning and stability of lexical components are regarded as interdependent features of phraseological units.

According to the criterion of context phraseological units are subdivided by N.N. Amosova into two types called phrasemes and idioms. Phrasemes are two-member word-groups in which one of the members has a specialised meaning dependent on the second component as in "small hours" (the second component (hours) serves as the only clue to this particular meaning of the component "small"; the meaning early is found only in the given (fixed) context "small hours"). Idioms are distinguished from phrasemes by the idiomatieity of the whole word-group (red tape —-"bureaucratic methods) and the impossibility of attaching meaning to the members of the group taken in isolation. Idioms may comprise unusual combinations of words which, when understood in their literal meaning, are normally incollocable as, e.g. "mare's nest1' (a mare — "a female horse"), a mare's nest" ~ "a discovery which proves false or worthless"). The clue to the idiomatic meaning is to be found in a wider context outside the phrase itself.

Some Debatable Points

The main objections to the contextual approach are as follows:
1. Non-variability of context does not necessarily imply specialised
meaning of the component or the components of the word-group, in some cases complete stability of the lexical components is found in word-groups
including words of a narrow or specific range of lexical valency as, e.g.shrug one's shoulders".

2. insists on fixed context being unique. Thus, although we know only two expressions where break means "to reveal", namely to break the news and to break the matter, these expressions are notconsidered by Amosova as belonging to phraseology. On the other hand, the expression "fiddler's news" = "stale news" is considered unique. However, the uniqueness of a linguistic unit is something that cannot beproved. Nobody can guarantee that a similar expression, someth |like, fiddler's yarn"» does not occur in the text Of a book one has not read.

A detailed functional and semantic classification primarily meant to meet ihe demands of lexicography is developed by Prof. A.V. Koonin in his "Курс фразеологии современного английского языка" and in "Introduction" to "Англо-русский фразеологический словарь^м.М₍Д984.

PUs are divided by A.V. Koonin into 3 groups:

1) PUs proper or idioms, which are completely or рartia lly non-motivated (idiomatic) (to kick the bucket, red tape, to kill two bids with one stone, more dead than alive; proverbs: birds of a feather flock together, sayings: all one's geese are swans);

2) idiophraseomatic units have both literal and figurative meanings.
Literal meanings are usually found in terminology or professionalisms
(chain reaction: 1) physical term -— цепная реакция; a word
combination with a metaphoric meaning — ряд последовательных
событий;

3) phraseomatic Units have either literal meanings or phraseomatically
bound meanings (e.g. cliches: again and again, to win a victory, safe and
sound; at the best, at the most, to pay attention (the verb "to pay" has a
phraseomatically bound meaning (обращать).

Phraseological units of all the groups are characterised by stability (lexical and semantic).

42.Simile and its types.

Figurative language is a tool that an author employs (or uses) to help the reader visualize (or see) what is happening in a story or poem. Some common types of figurative language are: simile, metaphor, alliteration, onomatopoeia, idiom, puns, and sensory language.

A simile is a poetic comparison using like or as. It usually compares two dissimilar objects.

For example: His feet were as big as boats. We are comparing the size of feet to boats. She is like a rainy day. He is as busy as a bee. They are like two peas in a pod

The simile is an "indirect comparison" because of its limited scope in transferring or "transforming" meaning in the comparison. For example, consider the following simile:

Поиск по сайту: