3 Types of lexical combinability of words:

   1).  Free combination Grammatical properties of words are the main factor of their combinability.

   Ex.: I'm talking to you. You are writing.

   Free combinations permit substitution of any of its elements without semantic change of the other element.

2). Collocations.

   Ex.: to commit a murder

   Blue sky

   Bright day

   They are the habitual associations of a word in a language with other particular words. Speakers become accustomed to such collocations.

   Very often they are related to the referential & situational meaning of words. Sometimes there are collocations, which are removed from the reference to extra-linguistic reality.  (collocations involving, colour words)

   Ex.: to be green with jealousy

3). Idioms

   Idioms are also collocations, because they consist of several words that tend to be used together, but the difference - we can't guess the meaning of the whole idiom from the meanings of its parts.

   This criterion is called the degree of semantic isolation. In different types of idioms - it is different.

   Ex.: to cry a blue murder = to complain loudly

   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 where the degree of motivation is very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, e.g. on Shank`s mare (on foot); in Russian: бить баклуши;

   b) unities where the meaning of the whole can be guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is transferred (metaphorically or metonimically), e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), old salt (experienced sailor);

   c) collocations where words are combined in their original meaning but their combinations are different in different languages, e.g. cash and carry - self-service shop, in a big way (in great degree).

   Structural classification of phraseological units

   Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky worked out a detaiked structural classification of phraseological units, comparing them with words. He points out one-top units which he compares with affixed words because affixed words have only one root morpheme. And he points out two-top units which he compares with compound words because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes.

   Among one-top units he points out three structural types:

   a) units of the type to give up (verb + postposition type);

   b) units of the type to be tired;

   c) prepositional-nominal phraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, e.g. on the doorstep - quite near, in the course of - during.

   Among two-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following structural types:

   a) attributive-nominal, e.g. a month of Sundays, grey matter;

   b) verbal-nominal, e.g. to read between the lines; to speak BBC;

   c) phraseological repetitions, e.g. now or never, part and parcel

   Syntactical classification of Structural classification of phraseological units

   Phraseological units can be classified as parts of speech. This classification was suggested by I.V. Arnold. Here we have the following groups:

   a) noun phraseological units denoting an object, a person, a living being,

   e.g. bullet train, a latchkey child;

   b) verb phraseological units denoting an action, a state, a feeling,

   e.g. to break the log-jam, to get on somebody`s coattails, to be on the beam;

   c) adjective phraseological units denoting a quality,

   e.g. loose as a goose, dull as lead;

   d) adverb phraseological units, e.g. with a bump, in the soup;

   e) preposition phraseological units, e.g. in the course of, on the stroke of;

   f) interjection phraseological units, e.g. Catch me! Well, I never!

   In I.V. Arnold classification there are also sentence equivalents: proverbs, sayings and quotations, e.g. The sky is the limit, What makes him tick, I am easy.

   Proverbs are usually metaphorical, e.g. Too many cooks spoil the broth,

   while sayings are, as a rule, non-metaphorical, e.g. Where there is a will, there is a way -

   Кто хочет, тот добьется.

6. English lexicography.Types of dictionaries.

Lexicography, that is the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries, is an important branch of applied linguistics.

   Practical lexicography is the art or craft of compiling, writing and editing dictionaries.

   Theoretical lexicography is the scholarly discipline of analyzing and describing the semantic relationships within the lexicon (vocabulary) of a language and developing theories of dictionary components and structures linking the data in dictionaries

   General lexicography focuses on the design, compilation, use and evaluation of general dictionaries, i.e. dictionaries that provide a description of the language in general use. Such a dictionary is usually called a general dictionary or LGP dictionary.

   Specialized lexicography focuses on the design, compilation, use and evaluation of specialized dictionaries, i.e. dictionaries that are devoted to a (relatively restricted) set of linguistic and factual elements of one or more specialist subject fields, e.g. legal lexicography. Such a dictionary is usually called a specialized dictionary or LSP dictionary.

   What we have noticed is that some of the principles involved in the making of dictionaries are clearly of a lexical or lexicological nature, while others derive rather from the area of book production. On occasions a decision may be affected by both kinds of principle, and one may be ignored in favour of the other. A decision of this kind is the one that relates to the treatment of lexemes with multiple word-class membership (such as skin п., v.). If these are accorded separate headwords because the layout of the page is thereby rendered more attractive, then the decision is informed by the principles of book production. If, however, only one headword is entered, with the consequently longer and denser entry, then it is likely that the decision has been taken on lexical grounds. It is possible, of course, that the separate headwords decision was based on lexical principles also.

   To the extent that decisions in dictionary compilation are informed by lexical principles, we may say, as Doroszewski does, that they are derived from lexicological theory. Indeed many aspects of lexicography must derive from explicit or implicit lexicological theory. For example, the question of what constitutes a lexeme is a lexicological matter, including the definition of the class of compounds or the classes of derivations. Lexicology is likewise concerned to investigate questions of homonymy and poly­semy, which are of great importance to lexicography. Indeed generally, lexicology investigates how to describe lexemes, both formally and semantically. Some lexicological theory (e.g. lexical field analysis) which we may consider of particular relevance to lexicography, has not yet been applied widely in dictionary compilation. This may be either because lexicography as a profession does not or cannot conceive of dictionaries handling lexical description in that way, or because lexicography does not explicitly recognise lexicology as its theoretical basis.

   It is probably fair to say that lexicography developed its own principles and traditions independently of the linguistic sciences generally; and it is only in the relatively recent past that explicit links between lexicography and linguistics have been recognised. Webster's Third New Inter­national Dictionary (1961) was the first to acknowledge the influence of modern linguistics, and then really in two areas only: the representation of pronunciation, and a generally descriptivist rather than prescriptivist stance. Many current dictionaries are, of course, linguistically informed, and compiled by lexicographers who have been trained in linguistics. Indeed, it is not just lexicology which provides descriptive apparatus for lexicography, but other branches of linguistics as well. For example, the study of language variety, which is part of sociolinguistics, contributes to the marking of style and register/domain in dictionaries.

   Some of the main problems in lexicography

   The most important problems of lexicography are connected with: 1) the selection of lexical units for inclusion; 2) the arrangement of the selected lexical units; 3) the setting of the entry; 4) the selection and arrangement of word-meanings; 5) the definition of meanings; 6) the illustrative material.

   The selection of lexical units for inclusion. The choice of lexical units for inclusion is the first problem the lexicographer faces. It is ne­cessary to decide: a) what types of lexical units will be chosen for the inclusion; b) the number of these items; c) what to select and what to leave out in the dictionary; d) which form of the language, spoken or written or both, the dictionary is to reflect; e) whether the dictionary should contain obsolete units, technical terms, dialectisms, colloquial­isms, and some others.

Lexicography, that is the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries, is an important branch of applied linguistics. The fundamental paper in lexicographic theory was written by L.V. Shcherba as far back as 1940. A complete bibliography of the subject may be found in L.P. Stupin’s works. Lexicography has a common object of study with lexicology, both describe the vocabulary of a language. The essential difference between the two lies in the degree of systematisation and completeness each of them is able to achieve. Lexicology aims at systematisation revealing characteristic features of words. It cannot, however, claim any completeness as regards the units themselves, because the number of these units being very great, systematisation and completeness could not be achieved simultaneously. The province of lexicography, on the other hand, is the semantic, formal, and functional description of all individual words. Dictionaries aim at a more or less complete description, but in so doing cannot attain systematic treatment, so that every dictionary entry presents, as it were, an independent problem. Lexicologists sort and present their material in a sequence depending upon their views concerning the vocabulary system, whereas lexicographers have to arrange it most often according to a purely external characteristic, namely alphabetically. It goes without saying that neither of these branches of linguistics could develop successfully without the other, their relationship being essentially that of theory and practice dealing with the same objects of reality. The term dictionary is used to denote a book listing words of a language with their meanings and often with data regarding pronunciation, usage and/or origin. There are also dictionaries that concentrate their attention upon only one of these aspects: pronouncing (phonetical) dictionaries (by Daniel Jones) and etymological dictionaries (by Walter Skeat, by Erik Partridge, “The Oxford English Dictionary"). For dictionaries in which the words and their definitions belong to the same language the term unilingual or explanatory is used, whereas bilingual or translation dictionaries are those that explain words by giving their equivalents in another language.¹ Multilingual or polyglot

dictionaries are not numerous, they serve chiefly the purpose of comparing synonyms and terminology in various languages. ¹ Unilingual dictionaries are further subdivided with regard to the time. Diachronic dictionaries, of which “The Oxford English Dictionary” is the main example, reflect the development of the English vocabulary by recording the history of form and meaning for every word registered. They may be contrasted to synchronic or descriptive dictionaries of current English concerned with present-day meaning and usage of words. ² The boundary between the two is, however, not very rigid: that is to say, few dictionaries are consistently synchronic, chiefly, perhaps, because their methodology is not developed as yet, so that in many cases the two principles are blended. ³ Some synchronic dictionaries are at the same time historical when they represent the state of vocabulary at some past stage of its development. ⁴ Both bilingual and unilingual dictionaries can be general and special. General dictionaries represent the vocabulary as a whole with a degree of completeness depending upon the scope and bulk of the book in question. The group includes the thirteen volumes of “The Oxford English Dictionary” alongside with any miniature pocket dictionary. Some general dictionaries may have very specific aims and still be considered general due to their coverage. They include, for instance, frequency dictionaries, i.e. lists of words, each of which is followed by a record of its frequency of occurrence in one or several sets of reading matter. ⁵ A rhyming dictionary is also a general dictionary, though arranged in inverse order, and so is a thesaurus in spite of its unusual arrangement. General dictionaries are contrasted to special dictionaries whose stated aim is to cover only a certain specific part of the vocabulary. Special dictionaries may be further subdivided depending on whether the words are chosen according to the sphere of human activity in which they are used (technical dictionaries), the type of the units themselves (e. g. phraseological dictionaries) or the relationships existing between them (e. g. dictionaries of synonyms). The first subgroup embraces highly specialised dictionaries of limited scope which may appeal to a particular kind of reader. They register and explain technical terms for various branches of knowledge, art and trade: linguistic, medical, technical, economical terms, etc. Unilingual books of this type giving definitions of terms are called glossaries. They are often prepared by boards or commissions specially appointed for the task of improving technical terminology and nomenclature. The second subgroup deals with specific language units, i.e. with phraseology, abbreviations, neologisms, borrowings, surnames, toponyms, proverbs and. sayings, etc. The third subgroup contains a formidable array of synonymic dictionaries that have been mentioned in the chapter on synonyms. Dictionaries recording the complete vocabulary of some author are called concordances,¹ they should be distinguished from those that deal only with difficult words, i.e. glossaries. Taking up territorial considerations one comes across dialect dictionaries and dictionaries of Americanisms. The main types of dictionaries are classified in the accompanying table. Types of Dictionaries

Unilingual		Bilingual or multilingual
General	Explanatory dictionaries irrespective of their bulk	English-Russian, Russian-English, etc. and multilingual dictionaries
	Etymological, frequency, phonetical, rhyming and thesaurus type dictionaries		Concentrated on one of the distinctive features of the word
Special	Glossaries of scientific and other special terms; concordances^1Dictionaries of abbreviations, antonyms, borrowings, new words, proverbs, synonyms, surnames, toponyms, etc.^2	Dictionaries of scientific and other special terms^1 Dictionaries of abbreviations, phraseology, proverbs, synonyms, etc.^2
	Dictionaries of American English, dialect and slang dictionaries	Dictionaries of Old English and Middle English with explanations in Modern English

¹ Dictionary entries are chosen according to the sphere of communication or the corpus in which they occur. ² Dictionary entries are selected according to the type of relationships between words.

Finally, dictionaries may be classified into linguistic and non-linguistic. The latter are dictionaries giving information on all branches of knowledge, the encyclopaedias. They deal not with words, but with facts and concepts. The best known encyclopaedias of the English-speaking world are “The Encyclopaedia Britannica”¹ and “The Encyclopaedia Americana”.² There exist also biographical dictionaries and many minor encyclopaedias. English lexicography is probably the richest in the world with respect to variety and scope of the dictionaries published. The demand for dictionaries is very great. One of the duties of school teachers of native language is to instil in their pupils the “dictionary habit”. Boys and girls are required by their teachers to obtain a dictionary and regularly consult it. There is a great variety of unilingual dictionaries for children. They help children to learn the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of words. An interesting example is the Thorndike dictionary.³ Its basic principle is that the words and meanings included should be only those which schoolchildren are likely to hear or to encounter in reading. The selection of words is therefore determined statistically by counts of the actual occurrence of words in reading matter of importance to boys and girls between 10 and 15. Definitions are also made specially to meet the needs of readers of that age, and this accounts for the ample use of illustrative sentences and pictures as well as for the encyclopaedic bias of the book. A dictionary is the most widely used reference book in English homes and business offices. Correct pronunciation and correct spelling are of great social importance, because they are necessary for efficient communication. A bilingual dictionary is useful to several kinds of people: to those who study foreign languages, to specialists reading foreign literature, to translators, to travellers, and to linguists. It may have two principal purposes: reference for translation and guidance for expression. It must provide an adequate translation in the target language of every word and expression in the source language. It is also supposed to contain all the inflectional, derivational, semantic and syntactic information that its reader might ever need, and also information on spelling and pronunciation. Data on the levels of usage are also considered necessary, including special warnings about the word being rare or poetical or slangy and unfit to be used in the presence of “one’s betters”. The number of special bilingual dictionaries for various branches of knowledge and engineering is ever increasing. A completely new type are the machine translation dictionaries which present their own specific problems, naturally differing from those presented by bilingual dictionaries for human translation. It is highly probable, however, that their evelopment will eventually lead to improving dictionaries for general use. The entries of a dictionary are usually arranged in alphabetical order, except that derivatives and compounds are given under the same head-word. In the ideographic dictionaries the main body is arranged according to a logical classification of notions expressed.¹ But dictionaries of this type always have an alphabetical index attached to facilitate the search for the necessary word.² The ideographic type of dictionary is in a way the converse of the usual type: the purpose of the latter is to explain the meaning when the word is given. The Thesaurus, on the contrary, supplies the word or words by which a given idea may be expressed. Sometimes the grouping is in parallel columns with the opposite notions. The book is meant only for readers (either native or foreign) having a good knowledge of English, and enables them to pick up an adequate expression and avoid overuse of the same words. The Latin word thesaurus means ‘treasury’. P. Roget’s book gave the word a new figurative meaning, namely, ‘a store of knowledge’, and hence ‘a dictionary containing all the words of a language’. A consistent classification of notions presents almost insuperable difficulties. Only relatively few “semantic fields", such as kinship terms, colour terms, names for parts of human body and some others fit into a neat scheme. For the most part, however, there is no one-to-one correlation between notions and words, and the classification of notions, even if it were feasible, is a very poor help for classification of meanings and their systematic presentation. The system of meanings stands in a very complex relationship to the system of notions because of the polysemantic character of most words. The semantic structure of words and the semantic system of vocabulary depend on many linguistic, historical and cultural factors.