- •41. Main sources of phraseological units
- •42. Phraseology and its boundaries.
- •46. Parameters of linguistic dictionaries
- •47. Main types of dictionaries
- •48. What are the main characteristics of a learners dictionary?
- •43. Principles of classification of ph u
- •1) Semantic classification of phraseological units
- •2) Structural classification of phraseological units
- •50. Variants and dialects of contemporary English
- •45. The fundamental problems of dictionary compilation
- •49. Thesaurus
- •44. The simile
- •39. Free Wgroups as compaired to ph units. Classification of Wgroups according to their motivation.
- •1. Inner structure of the Eng w-stock
- •38. Types of valency.
- •31. The principle semantic processes change of meaning (m)
- •1.Causes:
- •1. Inner structure of the Eng w-stock
- •3.Nature of semantic change
- •40. Phraseological units as compared to words & sentences
- •11. The complex units of w-b: w-b cluster, row, category
- •12. The functional aspect of w-b system: productivity and activity. The main means of w-b in English
- •13. Affixation and prefixation in contemporary e.
- •Prefixation is the formation of words by means of adding a prefix to the stem. In English it is characteristic for forming verbs. Prefixes are more independent than suffixes.
- •15) Word composition. Classification of compounds
- •17) Etymology. What makes it important for contemporary Lex. The role and place of borrowings in e
- •20) Loan translation
- •18) Causes and ways of borrowings. Criteria of b
- •16) Unpatterned means of w-building. Sound interchange
- •19) Assimilation of Borrowings. Degrees of Ass and factors determining it.
- •14) Conversion. Basi criteria of semantic derivation
- •21. Name the main periods when English experienced the influx of borrowings
- •22.Compare Scandinavian and French influence on English
- •23.Ethymological doublets
- •24. The layers of Latin borrowings in English. Their influence on the system of English w-building
- •25.The Norman conquest and its impact on English
- •26. Word mng. Approaches to defining it
- •27. Types, varieties and aspects of mng.
- •28. The fundamental features of w mng.
- •29. Polysemy, its sources. Polysemy & homonymy. Sources of homonyms. Classification of homonyms.
- •30. The main types of semantic relations between mngs.
- •36. T basic principles of grouping Ws together (см типы словарей)
- •2. Types of lex-l nomination Eng
- •35. Synchronic & diachronic approaches to variability of w m
- •34. What is a paradigm? Paradigmatic & syntgmatic approaches to t study of m.
- •33. Semantic contrasts & antonymy
- •32. Semantic equivalence & synonymy. Types of synonyms. Sources of synonyms.
- •Ideographic(denotational) stylistic(ideographic-stylistic)
- •Borrowing
- •3. The morphological structure of the w. Morphemes & allomorphs. The morphological meaning of the w.
- •4. The main principles of morphemes.
- •10. The main sources of enriching voc:
- •5. Classification of morphemes.
- •2) Semantically:
- •6. Procedure of morphemic analysis. Morphemic types of ws.
- •7. The main aim, principles & methods of derivational analysis.
- •8. The main units of derivational analysis: Basic units
- •Affixes: mono-polysemantic
- •May be 3 types of d Base
- •9. Derivational patterns.
39. Free Wgroups as compaired to ph units. Classification of Wgroups according to their motivation.
Wgroups – self-contained lexical units – автономные (независимые) лексич. единицы (лексемы)
Types of Wgroups:
(according to the degree of structural & semantic cohesion) (слияние)
Ph Units are comparatively stable & semantically inseparable
1. Set-phrases=Word equivalents=Phraseological units – lexically & semantically inseparable (high structural & semantic cohesion of Wgroups)
at least, p of view, by means of, take place
red tape
subject matter of phraseology
2. free=variable Wgroups/phrases – possess greater semantic & structural independence
take lessons, kind to ppl, a week ago
red dress
subject matter of syntax
Free w grs 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. Components can be added without changing the mng
PhU are comparatively stable and semantically inseperable. Lexical, semantical unity
Classification of Wgroups according to their motivation.
Semantically all W-groups may be classified into
-
Motivated
-
Non-motivated – they are usu described as Ph units
The degree of motivation may be dif. Bestw the extremes of complete motivation & lack of motivation there are innumerable intermediate cases
Vinogradov’s classification of Ph units (based on the semantic principle – degree of idiomacity)
-
Ph units (сращения)
-
Ph unities (единства)
-
Ph combinations/collocations (сочетания)
Ph units/fusions – completely non-motivated W-groups, the M of the components has no connection (at least synchronically) with the M of the whole group.
Ph fusions – Wgroups with a completely changed, demotivated M – the metaphor has lost its clarity & then became obscure
Idiomacity + complete stability
He acquired it on the bend – нечестным путем
in the red – гол как сокол \ у него долги
Ph unity – partially non-motivated as their M can usu be percieved through the metaphoric M of the whole Ph unit
to wash one’s dirty linen in public
Ph collocations are clearly & fully motivated – their M can be deduced from the Ms of its constituences & from common knowledge of the world
Black death least motivated
Black market
Black dress most motivated
!!! structural M+arrangement of morphemes in Ws
dog-house house-dog
англ яз – правокомпонентный: прав компонент несет осн знач,
левый - уточняет
37. Valency (V)& (=) collocability. Extralinguistic & linguistic restrictions on collocability.
Valency – the conventional mutual expectancy of Ws in all types of Wgroups
irrespective of the degree of structural & semantic cohesion(слияние)k∂u’hi:Ʒ(∂)n of their components.
the power of a W to combine with other Ws in speech
Extralinguistic & linguistic restrictions on collocability.
Linguistic restrictions:
1. Inner structure of the Eng w-stock
All Ws in a L form Wgroups & sentences if Wcombinations don’t violate the syntax (+grammar) of the L
A
child smiles – a
smiles child
lift x clever at mathematics
raise
a question mathematics
at clever
The restrictions of Lex V may manifest itselves in the Lex-l M-ings of the polysemantic members of Wgroups
heavy
food, meals, supper but heavy
cheese, sausage
– dif to digest
+ Ws make Wgroups in speech if their semantical structures are compatible (сочетаемы)
Extralinguistic restrictions
The correct syntax (W-order) isn’t enough for a Wgroup to be correct & accepted.
Chomsky: Green ideas sleep furiously
the Ws in the S don’t make sense = don’t come together semantically
! Our general knowledge of the world helps – it installs certain selectional restrictions on W-usage
Lexical grammatical
Grammatical valency – the aptness of a W to appear in certain grammatical (syntactic) patterns/structures
The pattern of a Wgroup – the minimal gr-l context in which Ws are used when brouhgt together to form Wgroups.
The range of gr-l V is delimited by the p of speech the W belongs to.
The gr-l V of each individual W is dependent on the gr-l structure of the L
Though Gr V is predetermined to a large extent by grammar rules
it is still different for each particular W
to offer/to suggest
! In dif L-ges correlative (соответствующие) Ws may differ greatly as to their V
smile at улыбаться кому-л
enter a room войти в комнату
The differences in Gr-l variants of correlative Ws are usu accounted for by
-
their semantic differences
-
differences in the structure of the L
Lexical valency – the aptness of a W to appear in certain combinations with other lexical units
! Свободной сочетаемости (free collocability) не существует!
Even well & bad are restricted to some extent
There is a certain norm of Lex V for each W & any departure from it is felt as a literary or stylistic device
a cigarette ago, to shove a question
Ws habitually used in speech tend to constitute a cliché
win a victory, put forward a question
The lex-l V of correlated Ws in dif L-ges is not identical
комнатные цветы – pot flowers
Smtimes the volume of semantics of the semantic structure in one L & its correlative in another L don’t coexist
? bury the trash – похоронить прах
to accompany 1. аккомпанировать
-
сопровождать кого-л (– в рус нет этого значения)