THE OBJECT OF LEXICOLOGY

Lexicology (from Gr lexis ‘word’ and logos ‘learning’) is the part of linguistics dealing with the vocabulary of the language and the properties of words as the main units of language. The term v o c a b u l a-r y is used to denote the system formed by the sum total of all the words and word equivalents that the language possesses. The term word denotes the basic unit of a given language resulting from the association of a particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment. A word therefore is simultaneously a semantic, grammatical and phonological unit. Thus, in the word boy the group of sounds [bOI] is associated with the meaning ‘a male child up to the age of 17 or 18’ (also with some other meanings, but this is the most frequent) and with a definite grammatical employment, i.e. it is a noun and thus has a plural form — boys, it is a personal noun and has the Genitive form boy’s (e. g. the boy’s mother), it may be used in certain syntactic functions. The

The term word equivalent denotes set expressions similar to words in so far as they are not created in speech but introduced into the act of communication ready-made, syntactically treated as single word.

The general study of words and vocabulary, irrespective of the specific features of any particular language, is known as general lexicology. Linguistic phenomena and properties common to all languages are generally referred to as language universals. Special lexicology devotes its attention to the description of the characteristic peculiarities in the vocabulary of a given language. It goes without saying that every special lexicology is based on the principles of general lexicology, and the latter forms a part of general linguistics.

A great deal has been written in recent years to provide a theoretical basis on which the vocabularies of different languages can be compared and described. This relatively new branch of study is called contrastive lexicology. Most obviously, we shall be particularly concerned with comparing English and Russian words.

The evolution of any vocabulary, as well as of its single elements, forms the object of historical lexicology or etymology. This branch of linguistics discusses the origin of various words, their change and development, and investigates the linguistic and extra-linguistic forces modifying their structure, meaning and usage.

In the past historical treatment was always combined with the comparative method. Historical lexicology has been criticised for its atomistic approach, i.e. for treating every word as an individual and isolated unit. This drawback is, however, not intrinsic to the science itself. Historical study of words is not necessarily atomistic. In the light of recent investigations it becomes clear that there is no reason why historical lexicology cannot survey the evolution of a vocabulary as an adaptive system, showing its change and development in the course of time.

Descriptive lexicology deals with the vocabulary of a given language at a given stage of its development. It studies the functions of words and their specific structure as a characteristic inherent in the system. The descriptive lexicology of the English language deals with the English word in its morphological and semantical structures, investigating the interdependence between these two aspects. These structures are identified and distinguished by contrasting the nature and arrangement of their elements. It will, for instance, contrast the word boy with its derivatives: boyhood, boyish, boyishly, etc. It will describe its semantic structure comprising alongside with its most frequent meaning, such variants as ‘a son of any age’, ‘a male servant’, and observe its syntactic functioning and combining possibilities. This word, for instance, can be also used vocatively in such combinations as old boy, my dear boy, and attributively, meaning ‘male’, as in boy-friend. Lexicology also studies all kinds of semantic grouping and semantic relations: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, semantic fields, etc. Meaning relations as a whole are dealt with in semantics — the study of meaning which is relevant both for lexicology and grammar.

The distinction between the two basically different ways in which language may be viewed, the historical or diachronic (Gr dia ‘through’ and chronos ‘time’) and the descriptive or synchronic (Gr syn ‘together’, ‘with’), is a methodological distinction, a difference of approach, artificially separating for the purpose of study what in real language is inseparable, because actually every linguistic structure and system exists in a state of constant development. The distinction between a synchronic and a diachronic approach is due to the Swiss philologist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913).1 Indebted as we are to him for this important dichotomy, we cannot accept either his axiom that synchronic linguistics is concerned with systems and diachronic linguistics with single units or the rigorous separation between the two. Subsequent investigations have shown the possibility and the necessity of introducing the historical point of view into systematic studies of languages. Language is the reality of thought, and thought develops togetherwith the development of society, therefore language and its vocabulary must be studied in the light of social history. Every new phenomenon in human society and in human activity in general, which is of any importance for communication, finds a reflection in vocabulary. A word, through its meaning rendering some notion, is a generalised reflection of reality; it is therefore impossible to understand its development if one is ignorant of the changes in social, political or everyday life, production or science, manners or culture it serves to reflect. These extra-linguistic forces influencing the development of words are considered in historical lexicology. The point may be illustrated by the following example: Post comes into English through French and Italian from Latin. Low Latin posta — posita fern. p.p. of Latin ponere, posit, v. ‘place’. In the beginning of the 16th century it meant ‘one of a number of men stationed with horses along roads at intervals, their duty being to ride forward with the King’s "packet” or other letters, from stage to stage’. This meaning is now obsolete, because this type of communication is obsolete. The word, however, has become international and denotes the present-day system of carrying and delivering letters and parcels. Its synonym mail, mostly used in America, is an ellipsis from a mail of letters, i.e. ‘a bag of letters’. It comes from Old French male (modern malle) ‘bag’, a word of Germanic origin. Thus, the etymological meaning of mail is ‘a bag or a packet of letters or dispatches for conveyance by post’. Another synonym of bag is sack which shows a different meaning development. Sack is a large bag of coarse cloth, the verb to sack ‘dismiss from service’ comes from the expression to get the sack, which probably rose from the habit of craftsmen of old times, who on getting a job took their own tools to the works; when they left or were dismissed they were given a sack to carry away the tools. In this connection it should be emphasised that the social nature of language and its vocabulary is not limited to the social essence of extra-linguistic factors influencing their development from without. Language being a means of communication the social essence is intrinsic to the language itself. Whole groups of speakers, for example, must coincide in a deviation, if it is to result in linguistic change. The branch of linguistics, dealing with causal relations between the way the language works and develops, on the one hand, and the facts of social life, on the other, is termed sociolinguistics. Some scholars use this term in a narrower sense, and maintain that it is the analysis of speech behaviour in small social groups that is the focal point of sociolinguistic analysis. A. D. Schweitzer has proved that such microsociological approach alone cannot give a complete picture of the sociology of language. It should be combined with the study of such macrosociological factors as the effect of mass media, the system of education, language planning, etc. An analysis of the social stratification of languages takes into account the stratification of society as a whole. Although the important distinction between a diachronic and a synchronic, a linguistic and an extralinguistic approach must always be borne in mind, yet it is of paramount importance for the student to take into consideration that in language reality all the aspects are interdependent and cannot be understood one without the other. Every linguistic investigation must strike a reasonable balance between them. The lexicology of present-day English, therefore, although having aims of its own, different from those of its historical counterpart, cannot be divorced from the latter. In what follows not only the present status of the English vocabulary is discussed: the description would have been sadly incomplete if we did not pay attention to the historical aspect of the problem — the ways and tendencies of vocabulary development. Being aware of the difference between the synchronic approach involving also social and place variations, and diachronic approach we shall not tear them asunder, and, although concentrating mainly on the present state of the English vocabulary, we shall also have to consider its development. Much yet remains to be done in elucidating the complex problems and principles of this process before we can present a complete and accurate picture of the English vocabulary as a system, with specific peculiarities of its own, constantly developing and conditioned by the history of the English people and the structure of the language.

THE NOTION OF LEXICAL SYSTEM

It has been claimed by different authors that, in contrast to grammar, the vocabulary of a language is not systematic but chaotic. In the light of recent investigations in linguistic theory, however, we are now in a position to bring some order into this "chaos”. Lexicology studies the recurrent patterns of semantic relationships, and of any formal phonological, morphological or contextual means by which they may be rendered. It aims at systematisation. There has been much discussion of late, both in this country and abroad, concerning different problems of the systematic nature of the language vocabulary. The Soviet scholars are now approaching a satisfactory solution based on Marxist dialectics and its teaching of the general interrelation and interdependence of phenomena in nature and society. There are several important points to be made here. The term system as used in present-day lexicology denotes not merely the sum total of English words, it denotes a set of elements associated and functioning together according to certain laws. It is a coherent homogeneous whole, constituted by interdependent elements of the same order related in certain specific ways. The vocabulary of a language is moreover an adaptive system constantly adjusting itself to the changing requirements and conditions of human communications and cultural surroundings. It is continually developing by overcoming contradictions between its state and the new tasks and demands it has to meet. A set is described in the abstract set theory as a collection of definite distinct objects to be conceived as a whole. A set is said to be a collection of distinct elements, because a certain object may be distinguished from the other elements in a set, but there is no possibility of its repeated appearance. A set is called structured when the number of its elements is greater than the number of rules according to which these elements may be constructed. A set is given either by indicating, i.e. listing, all its elements, or by stating the characteristic property of its elements. For example the closed set of English articles may be defined as comprising the elements: the, a/an and zero. The set of English compounds on the other hand is an infinite (open) set containing all the words consisting of at least two stems which occur in the language as free forms. In a classical set theory the elements are said to be definite because with respect to any of them it should be definite whether it belongs to a given set or not. The new development in the set theory, that of fuzzy sets, has proved to be more relevant to the study of vocabulary. We have already mentioned that the boundaries of linguistic sets are not sharply delineated and the sets themselves overlapping. The lexical system of every epoch contains productive elements typical of this particular period, others that are obsolete and dropping out of usage, and, finally, some new phenomena, significant marks of new trends for the epochs to come. The present status of a system is an abstraction, a sort of scientific fiction which in some points can facilitate linguistic study, but the actual system of the language is in a state of constant change. Lexicology studies this whole by determining the properties of its elements and the different relationships of contrast and similarity existing between them within a language, as well as the ways in which they are influenced by extra-linguistic reality. The extra-linguistic relationships refer to the connections of words with the elements of objective reality they serve to denote, and their dependence on the social, mental and cultural development of the language community. The theory of reflection as developed by V.I. Lenin is our methodological basis, it teaches that objective reality is approximately but correctly reflected in the human mind. The notions rendered in the meanings of the words are generalised reflections of real objects and phenomena. In this light it is easy to understand how things that are connected in reality come to be connected in language too. As we have seen above, the original meaning of the word post was ‘a man stationed in a number of others along a road as a courier’, hence it came to mean the vehicle used, the packets and letters carried, a relay of horses, the station where horses could be obtained (shortened for post-office), a single dispatch of letters. E. g.: It is a place with only one post a day (Sidney Smith). It is also used as a title for newspapers. There is a verb post ‘to put letters into a letter-box.' The reflection of objective reality is selective. That is, human thought and language select, reflect and nominate what is relevant to human activity. Even though its elements are concrete and can be observed as such, a system is always abstract, and so is the vocabulary system or, as Academician V.V. Vinogradov has called it, the lexico-semantic system. The interdependence in this system results from a complex interaction of words in their lexical meanings and the grammatical features of the language. V.V. Vinogradov includes in this term both the sum total of words and expressions and the derivational and functional patterns of word forms and word-groups, semantic groupings and relationships between words. The interaction of various levels in the language system may be illustrated in English by the following: the widespread development of homonymy and polysemy, the loss of motivation, the great number of generic words and the very limited autonomy of English words as compared with Russian words are all closely connected with the mono-morphemic analytical character of the English language and the scarcity of morphological means. All these in their turn result, partly at least, from levelling and loss of endings, processes undoubtedly connected with the reduction of vowels in unstressed syllables. In this book the relations between these elements and the regularity of these relations are shown In terms of oppositions, differences, equivalencies and positional values. Equivalence should be clearly distinguished from equality or identity. Equivalence is the relation between two elements based on the common feature due to which they belong to the same set. The term sуstem as applied to vocabulary should not be understood to mean a well-defined or rigid system. As it has been stated above it is an adaptive system and cannot be completely and exactly characterised by deterministic functions; that is for the present state of science it is not possible to specify the system’s entire future by its status at some one instant of its operation. In other words, the vocabulary is not simply a probabilistic system but a set of interrelated adaptive subsystems. An approximation is always made possible by leaving some things out of account. But we have to remember that the rules of language are mostly analogies. The following simple example offered by J. Lyons illustrates this point: the regular, that is statistically predominant, pattern for adjective stems is to form abstract nouns by means of the suffix -ness: shortness, narrowness, shallowness. All the antonyms of the above-mentioned words, however, follow a different pattern: they have a dental suffix: length, width, depth. This second analogy becomes a constraint on the working of the first. Moreover, the relationship of the adjective big with the rest of the system is even more unpredictable, as it is mostly correlated with the noun size. The semantic correlation then is as follows: short = narrow = shallow = long = wide = deep = big shortness narrowness shallowness length width depth size At this point it will be helpful to remember that it is precisely the most frequent words that show irregular or suppletive derivation and inflection. Last but not least, one final point may be made about the lexical system, namely that its elements are characterised by their combinatorial and contrastive properties determining their syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships. A word enters into syntagmatic (linear) combinatorial relationships with other lexical units that can form its context, serving to identify and distinguish its meaning. Lexical units are known to be context-dependent. E. g. in the hat on her head the noun head means ‘part of the body’, whereas in the head of the department Head means ‘chief. A word enters into contrastive paradigmatic relations with all other words, e. g. head, chief, director, etc. that can occur in the same context and be contrasted to it.1 This principle of contrast or opposition is fundamental in modern linguistics and we shall deal with it at length in concerned with the theory of oppositions. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic studies of meaning are functional because the meaning of the lexical unit is studied first not through its relation to referent but through its functions in relation to other units. Functional approach is contrasted to referential or onomasiological approach, otherwise called theory of nomination, in which meaning is studied as the interdependence between words and their referents, that is things or concepts they name, i.e. various names given to the same sense. The onomasiological study of lexical units became especially prominent in the last two decades. The revival of interest in onomasiological matters is reflected in a large volume of publications on the subject. An outline of the main trends of current research will be found in the monographs on the Theory of Nomination issued by the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences. The study of the lexical system must also include the study of the words’ combinatorial possibilities •— their capacity to combine with one another in groups of certain patterns, which serve to identify meanings. Most modern research in linguistics attaches great importance to what is variously called valency, distributional characteristics, colligation and collocation, combining power or otherwise. This research shows that combinatorial possibilities of words play an important part in almost every lexicological issue. Syntagmatic relationships being based on the linear character of speech are studied by means of contextual, valency, distributional, transformational and some other types of analysis. Paradigmatic linguistic relationships determining the vocabulary system are based on the interdependence of words within the vocabulary (synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, etc.). Diachronically the interdependence of words within the lexical subsystem may be seen by observing shifts in the meaning of existing words that occur when a new word is introduced into their semantic sphere. This interdependence is one of the reasons why historical linguistics can never achieve any valuable results if it observes only the development of isolated words. Almost any change in one word will cause changes in one or several other words. Characteristic examples are to be found in the influence of borrowings upon native words. The native OE haerfest (ModE harvest || Germ Herbst) originally meant not only the gathering of grain’ but also ‘the season for reaping’. Beginning with the end of the 14th century, that is after the Romance word autumne > autumn was borrowed, the second meaning in the native word was lost and transferred to the word autumn. When speaking about the influence of other aspects on the development of the vocabulary, we mean the phonetical, morphological and syntactical systems of the English language as they condition the sound form, morphological structure, motivation and meaning of words. This influence is manifold, and we shall have to limit our illustration to the most elementary examples. The monosyllabic phonological type of the English word, for instance, enhances homonymy. Сf. miss v ‘not hit’, ‘not catch’ and miss n — a title for a girl or unmarried woman. The influence of morphology is manifest, for instance, in the development of non-affixed word-formation. Cf. harvest n and harvest v. The above considerations are not meant to be exhaustive; they are there to give some general idea of the relationships in question. In this connection it is necessary to point out that various interpretations of the same linguistic phenomena have repeatedly been offered and have even proved valuable for their respective purposes, just as in other sciences various interpretations may be given for the same facts of reality in conformity with this or that practical task. To be scientific, however, these interpretations cannot be arbitrary: they must explain facts and permit explanation and prediction of other facts. Therefore they must fit without bringing contradictions into the whole system of the theory created for the subject.

THE THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL VALUE OF ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY

The importance of English lexicology is based not on the size of its vocabulary, however big it is, but on the fact that at present it is the world’s most widely used language. One of the most fundamental works on the English language of the present — "A Grammar of Contemporary English” by R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1978) — gives the following data: it is spoken as a native language by nearly three hundred million people in Britain, the United States, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and some other countries. The knowledge of English is widely spread geographically — it is in fact used in all continents. It is also spoken in many countries as a second language and used in official and business activities there. This is the case in India, Pakistan and many other former British colonies. English is also one of the working languages of the United Nations and the universal language of international aviation. More than a half world’s scientific literature is published in English and 60% of the world’s radio broadcasts are in English. For all these reasons it is widely studied all over the world as a foreign language. The theoretical value of lexicology becomes obvious if we realise that it forms the study of one of the three main aspects of language, i.e. its vocabulary, the other two being its grammar and sound system. The theory of meaning was originally developed within the limits of philosophical science. The relationship between the name and the thing named has in the course of history constituted one of the key questions in gnostic theories and therefore in the struggle of materialistic and idealistic trends. The idealistic point of view assumes that the earlier forms of words disclose their real correct meaning, and that originally language was created by some superior reason so that later changes of any kind are looked upon as distortions and corruption. The materialistic approach considers the origin, development and current use of words as depending upon the needs of social communication. The dialectics of its growth is determined by its interaction with the development of human practice and mind. In the light of V. I. Lenin’s theory of reflection we know that the meanings of words reflect objective reality. Words serve as names for things, actions, qualities, etc. and by their modification become better adapted to the needs of the speakers. This proves the fallacy of one of the characteristic trends in modern idealistic linguistics, the so-called Sapir-Whorf thesis according to which the linguistic system of one’s native language not only expresses one’s thoughts but also determines them. This view is incorrect, because our mind reflects the surrounding world not only through language but also directly. Lexicology came into being to meet the demands of many different branches of applied linguistics, namely of lexicography, standardisation of terminology, information retrieval, literary criticism and especially of foreign language teaching. Its importance in training a would-be teacher of languages is of a quite special character and cannot be overestimated as it helps to stimulate a systematic approach to the facts of vocabulary and an organised comparison of the foreign and native language. It is particularly useful in building up the learner’s vocabulary by an effective selection, grouping and analysis of new words. New words are better remembered if they are given not at random but organised in thematic groups, word-families, synonymic series, etc. A good knowledge of the system of word-formation furnishes a tool helping the student to guess and retain in his memory the meaning of new words on the basis of their motivation and by comparing and contrasting them with the previously learned elements and patterns. The knowledge, for instance, of the meaning of negative, reversative and pejorative prefixes and patterns of derivation may be helpful in understanding new words. For example such words as immovable a, deforestation n and miscalculate v will be readily understood as ‘that cannot be moved’, ‘clearing land from forests’ and ‘to calculate wrongly’. By drawing his pupils’ attention to the combining characteristics of words the teacher will prevent many mistakes.1 It will be word-groups falling into patterns, instead of lists of unrelated items, that will be presented in the classroom. A working knowledge and understanding of functional styles and stylistic synonyms is indispensable when literary texts are used as a basis for acquiring oral skills, for analytical reading, discussing fiction and translation. Lexicology not only gives a systematic description of the present make-up of the vocabulary, but also helps students to master the literary standards of word usage. The correct use of words is an important counterpart of expressive and effective speech. An exact knowledge of the vocabulary system is also necessary in connection with technical teaching means. Lexicology plays a prominent part in the general linguistic training of every philologist by summing up the knowledge acquired during all his years at the foreign language faculty. It also imparts the necessary skills of using different kinds of dictionaries and reference books, and prepares for future independent work on increasing and improving one’s vocabulary.

THE CONNECTION OF LEXICOLOGY WITH PHONETICS, STYLISTICS, GRAMMAR AND OTHER BRANCHES OF LINGUISTICS

The treatment of words in lexicology cannot be divorced from the study of all the other elements in the language system to which words belong. It should be always borne in mind that in reality, in the actual process of communication, all these elements are interdependent and stand in definite relations to one another. We separate them for convenience of study, and yet to separate them for analysis is pointless, unless we are afterwards able to put them back together to achieve a synthesis and see their interdependence and development in the language system as a whole. The word, as it has already been stated, is studied in several branches of linguistics and not in lexicology only, and the latter, in its turn, is closely connected with general linguistics, the history of the language, phonetics, stylistics, grammar and such new branches of our science as sociolinguistics, paralinguistics, pragmalinguistics and some others.1 The importance of the connection between lexicology and phonetics stands explained if we remember that a word is an association of a given group of sounds with a given meaning, so that top is one word, and tip is another. Phonemes have no meaning of their own but they serve to distinguish between meanings. Their function is building up morphemes, and it is on the level of morphemes that the form-meaning unity is introduced into language. We may say therefore that phonemes participate in signification. Word-unity is conditioned by a number of phonological features. Phonemes follow each other in a fixed sequence so that [pit] is different from [tip]. The importance of the phonemic make-up may be revealed by the substitution test which isolates the central phoneme of hope by setting it against hop, hoop, heap or hip. An accidental or jocular transposition of the initial sounds of two or more words, the so-called spoonerisms illustrate the same point. Cf. our queer old dean for our dear old queen, sin twister for twin sister, May I sew you to a sheet? for May I show you to a seat?, a half-warmed fish for a half-formed wish, etc.1 Discrimination between the words may be based upon stress: the word ‘import is recognised as a noun and distinguished from the verb im'port due to the position of stress. Stress also distinguishes compounds from otherwise homonymous word-groups: ‘blackbird : : ‘black ‘bird. Each language also possesses certain phonological features marking word-limits. Historical phonetics and historical phonology can be of great use in the diachronic study of synonyms, homonyms and polysemy. When sound changes loosen the ties between members of the same word-family, this is an important factor in facilitating semantic changes. The words whole, heal, hail, for instance, are etymologically related.2 The word whole originally meant ‘unharmed’, ;unwounded’. The early verb whole meant 4to make whole’, hence ‘heal’. Its sense of ‘healthy’ led to its use as a salutation, as in hail! Having in the course of historical development lost their phonetic similarity, these words cannot now exercise any restrictive influence upon one another’s semantic development. Thus, hail occurs now in the meaning of ‘call’, even with the purpose to stop and arrest (used by sentinels). Meaning in its turn is indispensable to phonemic analysis because to establish the phonemic difference between [ou] and [o] it is sufficient to know that [houp] means something different from [hop]. All these considerations are not meant to be in any way exhaustive, they can only give a general idea of the possible interdependence of the two branches of linguistics. Stylistics, although from a different angle, studies many problems treated in lexicology. These are the problems of meaning, connotations, synonymy, functional differentiation of vocabulary according to the sphere of communication and some other issues. For a reader without some awareness of the connotations and history of words, the images hidden in their root and their stylistic properties, a substantial part of the meaning of a literary text, whether prosaic or poetic, may be lost. Thus, for instance, the mood of despair in O. Wilde’s poem "Taedium Vitae” (Weariness of Life) is felt due to an accumulation of epithets expressed by words with negative, derogatory connotations, such as: desperate, paltry, gaudy, base, lackeyed, slanderous, lowliest, meanest. An awareness of all the characteristic features of words is not only rewarded because one can feel the effect of hidden connotations and imagery, but because without it one cannot grasp the whole essence of the message the poem has to convey. The difference and interconnection between grammar and lexicology is one of the important controversial issues in linguistics and as it is basic to the problems under discussion in this book, it is necessary to dwell upon it a little more than has been done for phonetics and stylistics. A close connection between lexicology and grammar is conditioned by the manifold and inseverable ties between the objects of their study. Even isolated words as presented in a dictionary bear a definite relation to the grammatical system of the language because they belong to some part of speech and conform to some lexico-grammatical characteristics of the word class to which they belong. Words seldom occur in isolation. They are arranged in certain patterns conveying the relations between the things for which they stand, therefore alongside with their lexical meaning they possess some grammatical meaning. Сf. head of the committee and to head a committee. The two kinds of meaning are often interdependent. That is to say, certain grammatical functions and meanings are possible only for the words whose lexical meaning makes them fit for these functions, and, on the other hand, some lexical meanings in some words occur only in definite grammatical functions and forms and in definite grammatical patterns. For example, the functions of a link verb with a predicative expressed by an adjective cannot be fulfilled by every intransitive verb but are often taken up by verbs of motion: come true, fall ill, go wrong, turn red, run dry and other similar combinations all render the meaning of ‘become sth’. The function is of long standing in English and can be illustrated by a line from A. Pope who, protesting against blank verse, wrote: It is not poetry, but prose run mad.1 On the other hand the grammatical form and function of the word affect its lexical meaning. A well-known example is the same verb go when in the continuous tenses, followed by to and an infinitive (except go and come), it serves to express an action in the near and immediate future, or an intention of future action: You're not going to sit there saying nothing all the evening, both of you, are you? (Simpson) Participle II of the same verb following the link verb be denotes absence: The house is gone. In subordinate clauses after as the verb go implies comparison with the average: ... how a novel that has now had a fairly long life, as novels go, has come to be written (Maugham). The subject of the verb go in this construction is as a rule an inanimate noun. The adjective hard followed by the infinitive of any verb means ‘difficult’: One of the hardest things to remember is that a man’s merit in one sphere is no guarantee of his merit in another. Lexical meanings in the above cases are said to be grammatically conditioned, and their indicating context is called syntactic or mixed. The point has attracted the attention of many authors.1 The number of words in each language being very great, any lexical meaning has a much lower probability of occurrence than grammatical meanings and therefore carries the greatest amount of information in any discourse determining what the sentence is about. W. Chafe, whose influence in the present-day semantic syntax is quite considerable, points out the many constraints which limit the co-occurrence of words. He considers the verb as of paramount importance in sentence semantic structure, and argues that it is the verb that dictates the presence and character of the noun as its subject or object. Thus, the verbs frighten, amuse and awaken can have only animate nouns as their objects. The constraint is even narrower if we take the verbs say, talk or think for which only animate human subjects are possible. It is obvious that not all animate nouns are human. This view is, however, if not mistaken, at least one-sided, because the opposite is also true: it may happen that the same verb changes its meaning, when used with personal (human) names and with names of objects. Compare: The new girl gave him a strange smile (she smiled at him) and The new teeth gave him a strange smile. These are by no means the only relations of vocabulary and grammar. We shall not attempt to enumerate all the possible problems. Let us turn now to another point of interest, namely the survival of two grammatically equivalent forms of the same word when they help to distinguish between its lexical meanings. Some nouns, for instance, have two separate plurals, one keeping the etymological plural form, and the other with the usual English ending -s. For example, the form brothers is used to express the family relationship, whereas the old form brethren survives in ecclesiastical usage or serves to indicate the members of some club or society; the scientific plural of index, is usually indices, in more general senses the plural is indexes. The plural of genius meaning a person of exceptional intellect is geniuses, genius in the sense of evil or good spirit has the plural form genii. It may also happen that a form that originally expressed grammatical meaning, for example, the plural of nouns, becomes a basis for a new grammatically conditioned lexical meaning. In this new meaning it is isolated from the paradigm, so that a new word comes into being. Arms, the plural of the noun arm, for instance, has come to mean ‘weapon’. E.g. to take arms against a sea of troubles (Shakespeare). The grammatical form is lexicalised; the new word shows itself capable of further development, a new grammatically conditioned meaning appears, namely, with the verb in the singular arms metonymically denotes the military profession. The abstract noun authority becomes a collective in the term authorities and denotes ‘a group of persons having the right to control and govern’. Compare also colours, customs, looks, manners, pictures, works which are the best known examples of this isolation, or, as it is also called, lexicalisation of a grammatical form. In all these words the suffix -s signals a new word with a new meaning. It is also worthy of note that grammar and vocabulary make use of the same technique, i.e. the formal distinctive features of some derivational oppositions between different words are the same as those of oppositions contrasting different grammatical forms (in affixation, juxtaposition of stems and sound interchange). Compare, for example, the oppositions occurring in the lexical system, such as work :: worker, power :: will-power, food :: feed with grammatical oppositions: work (Inf.) :: worked (Past Ind.), pour (Inf.) :: will pour (Put. Ind.), feed (Inf.) :: fed (Past Ind.). Not only are the methods and patterns similar, but the very morphemes are often homonymous. For example, alongside the derivational suffixes -en, one of which occurs in adjectives (wooden), and the other in verbs (strengthen), there are two functional suffixes, one for Participle II (written), the other for the archaic plural form (oxen). Furthermore, one and the same word may in some of its meanings function as a notional word, while in others it may be a form word, i.e. it may serve to indicate the relationships and functions of other words. Compare, for instance, the notional and the auxiliary do in the following: What you do’s nothing to do with me, it doesn’t interest me. Last but not least all grammatical meanings have a lexical counterpart that expresses the same concept. The concept of futurity may be lexically expressed in the words future, tomorrow, by and by, time to come, hereafter or grammatically in the verbal forms shall come and will come. Also plurality may be described by plural forms of various words: houses, boys, books or lexically by the words: crowd, party, company, group, set, etc. The ties between lexicology and grammar are particularly strong in the sphere of word-formation which before lexicology became a separate branch of linguistics had even been considered as part of grammar. The characteristic features of English word-building, the morphological structure of the English word are dependent upon the peculiarity of the English grammatical system. The analytical character of the language is largely responsible for the wide spread of conversion1 and for the remarkable flexibility of the vocabulary manifest in the ease with which many nonce-words2 are formed on the spur of the moment. This brief account of the interdependence between the two important parts of linguistics must suffice for the present. In future we shall have to return to the problem and treat some parts of it more extensively.

SEMASIOLOGY

The branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words and word equivalents is called semasiology. The name comes from the Greek sēmasiā ‘signification’ (from sēma ‘sign’ sēmantikos ‘significant’ and logos ‘learning’). 

3 Main types definition of meaning There are 3 main types of definition of meaning:

(a) Analytical or referential definition

(b) Functional or contextual approach

(c) Operational or informationally oriented definition of meaning

REFERENTIAL APPROACH

Within the referential approach linguists attempt at establishing interdependence between words and objects of phenomena they denote. The idea is illustrated by the so-called basic triangle

REFERENT........................................................................................................................ SYMBOL

(concrete object) . (in which this object is reflected)

sound or letter form in which this concept is reflected)

THOUGHT OF REFERENT

(or concept)

There is no direct connection between the referent "table" and the sound form "table". This connection is conventional.

The diagram illustrates the correlation between the sound form of a word, the concrete object it denotes and the underlying concept. The dotted line suggests that there is no immediate relation between sound form and referent + it testifies to the fact that this connection is conventional.

Relation can be established through the concept, which belongs to the human cognition, and the concept is the result of abstraction. The diagram fails to show what meaning really is. The concept, the referent, or the relations between the name and the concept.

Trying to solve this problem, Russian linguists precede from the assumption that the linguistic sign is the so-called two-facet union. They view meaning as a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations, which makes the inner facet of the word. And the sound form is its outer facet.

The merits of this approach are as follows: it links the notion of meaning to the process of name giving to objects, processes or concepts.

The drawbacks are:

1. Referential definition cannot be applied to sentences and additional meanings arising in communication.

2. It fails to account for polysemy and synonymy.

3. It operates with subjective and intangible mental processes, because neither reference nor objects belong to linguistic data.

FUNCTIONAL (CONTEXTUAL) APPROACH *

The supporters of this approach define meaning as the use of word in a language. They assume that meaning should be studied through context. If the distribution of two words is different we can conclude that heir meanings are different too (Ex. He looked at me in surprise; He's been looking for it...)

However, it is hardly possible to collect all meanings of the word and in practice linguist is guided by his experience and intuition. On the whole, this approach may be considered complimentary to the referential definition and it is applied mainly in structural linguistics.

* OPERATIONAL APPROACH *

It studies words in action. It describes meaning as information conveyed from the speaker to the listener in the process of communication. But though it can be applied both to words and sentences, it fails to distinguish between the direct sense (or meaning proper) and implications (or additional information) (Ex John came at six o'clock. Depending on situation it may have some additional meanings: he was punctual as usual, or he came two hours later, he didn't keep his promise and so on).

In each case the implication would depend on concrete situation, and considering the importance of two layers of information thee were suggested two terms: MEANING for direct meaning and SENSE for implications.

The word "meaning" is not homogeneous. Its components are called "types of meaning". The two main types of meaning are grammatical and lexical meaning.

The grammatical meaning is the component of meaning, recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of words

The grammatical meaning is the component of meaning, recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of words

(goes, loves, reads - 3rd person singular. Books, tables, apples - the recurrent meaning of plurality).

The lexical meaning is the meaning proper to the linguistic unit in all its forms and distribution. That's why "buy, buys" have different grammatical meaning. But in all of them we find the semantic component "male child".

The grammatical meaning and lexical meaning make up the word meaning and neither of them can exist without the other.

The grammatical meaning is more abstract and generalized. In some word classes it is the lexical meaning that is rather vague (Ex. in prepositions / link verbs).

Third type of meaning is called lexical-grammatical meaning (or part-of-speech meaning). It is the common denominator of all the meanings of words belonging to a lexical-grammatical class (class of nouns, verbs etc.)

The meaning of thingness is characteristic of all nouns. This type of meaning is observed through a set of forms (Ex. all nouns have forms denoting number and case). Some parts of speech are observed through their distribution (Ex. prepositions).

The lexical meaning comprises two main components the denotational aspect of meaning and the connotational aspect of meaning. The term "denotational aspect of meaning" is derived from "to denote" and it is through this component of meaning that the main information is conveyed in the process of communication. Besides, it helps to insure8 references to things common to all the speakers of the given language (Ex. "chemistry"- I'm not an expert in it, but I know what it is about).

The connotational aspect may be called "optional". It conveys additional information in the process of communication. And it may denote the emotive charge and the stylistic value of the word. The emotive charge is the emotive evaluation9 inherent in the connotational component of the lexical meaning (Ex. "notorious" => [widely known] => for criminal acts, bad behaviour, bad traits of character; "famous" => [widely known] => for special achievement in science etc.).

Positive/Negative evaluation; emotive charge/stylistic value.

"to love"

"to adore" - to love greatly => the emotive charge is higher than in "to love"

"to shake" - neutral.

"to shiver" - is stronger => higher emotive charge.

Mind that the emotive charge is not a speech characteristic of the word. It's a language phenomenon => it remains stable and it is repeatedly reproduced.

If associations with the lexical meaning concern the situation, the social circumstances (formal/informal), the social relations between the interlocutors (polite/rough), the type or purpose of communication (poetic/official)the connotation is stylistically coloured. It is termed as stylistic reference. The main stylistic layers of vocabulary are:

Literary "parent"

Neutral "father"

Colloquial "dad"

But the denotational meaning is the same!!!

The constituent elements of connotation are closely linked together and they can be looked at separately only for the sake of scientific analysis:

> To pass into the next world (= to die)- bookish, poetic

> To die - neutral, doesn't have emotive charge

> To kick the bucket - highly emotive and stylistically it is colloquial

The lexical meaning of the word can also be segmented into semantic components, which are called semes. The procedure of componentional analysis may be illustrated by the semantic field of kinship13:

• Father = male + parent

• Mother = female + parent

• Son = male + in relation to parent

• Daughter = female + in relation to parent

Semes are mostly determined with the help of dictionary definitions. To find semes one should consult an English-English dictionary.

6. A word may have several meanings, and these meanings are interconnected and form up its semantic structure.

The words of the kind are called polysemantic. The greater the relative fe-quency14 of the word is, the more meanings it has within its semantic structure.

Monosemantic words are mostly scientific terms. In case of a polysemantic word the unity of its form and meaning is kept in its lexical-grammatical variant. Ex. "Youth" has 3 lexical-grammatical variants

a) An abstract uncountable noun as in "a friend of one's youth".

b) A countable noun in the meaning of the young man.

c) A collective noun which implies men and women = > used only in plural.

7. Polysemy.

Diachronically, polysemy is understood as the growth and development of the semantic structure of the word and historically we differentiate between the primary and secondary meanings of words.

The relation between these meanings isn't only the one of order of appearance but it is also the relation of dependence = > we can say that secondary meaning is always the derived meaning.

Synchronically it is possible to distinguish between major (basic, central) meaning of the word and its minor meanings. Sometimes it is hard to grade individual meaning of the word in order of their comparative value.

To get the letter- получить письмо.

To get to London - прибыть в Лондон (minor).

The only more or less objective criterion in this case is the frequency of occurence in speech. The semantic structure is never static and the primary meaning of a word may become synchronically one of the minor meanings and vice versa. Stylistic factors should always be taken into consideration.

Polysemy of words: "yellow"- sensational (Am., sl.)

The meaning which has the highest frequency is the one representative of the whole semantic structure of the word. The Russian equivalent of "a table" which first comes to your mind and when you hear this word is 'cтол" in the meaning "a piece of furniture". And words that correspond in their major meanings in two different languages are referred to as correlated words though their semantic structures may be different.

Primary meaning- historically first.

Major meaning - the most frequently used meaning of the word synchronically.

Synonyms and antonyms

Synonyms are different words with almost identical or similar meanings or we can say that they have same meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. The word comes from Ancient Greek syn(σύν) ("with") and onoma (ὄνομα) ("name"). The words car and automobile are synonyms. Similarly, if we talk about a long time or an extended time, long and extended become synonyms. In the figurative sense, two words are often said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation:

"a widespread impression that... Hollywood was synonymous with immorality" (Doris Kearns Goodwin)

Synonyms can be any part of speech (such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs orprepositions), as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech. Here are more examples of English synonyms:

• verb

  • "buy" and "purchase"

• adjective

  • "sick" and "ill"

• adverb

  • "quickly" and "speedily"

• preposition

  • "on" and "upon"

Note that synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the "aperture in the iris of the eye" is not synonymous with student. Similarly, he expired means the same as he died, yet my passport has expired cannot be replaced by my passport has died.

In English, many synonyms evolved from the parallel use, in the early medieval period, of Norman French (from Latin) and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) words, often with some words being used principally by the Saxon peasantry ("folk", "freedom", "bowman") and their synonyms by the Norman nobility ("people", "liberty", "archer").

Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) becauseetymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique. Different words that are similar in meaning usually differ for a reason: feline is more formal than cat; long and extended are only synonyms in one usage and not in others (for example, a long arm is not the same as an extended arm). Synonyms are also a source of euphemisms.

The purpose of a thesaurus is to offer the user a listing of similar or related words; these are often, but not always, synonyms.

Antonyms

Antonyms are words that mean opposite of another word

Structurally, all antonyms can be subdivided into ABSOLUTE (having different roots) and DERIVATIONAL (of the same root), "right"- "wrong" are absolute antonyms; "to arrive"- "to leave" are absolute antonims; but "to fit" - "to unfit" are derivational.

Semantically, all antonyms can be divided in at least 3 groups:

a) CONTRADICTORIES. Contradictory notions are mutually opposed and they deny each other. Their relations can be described by the formula "A vs. NOT A": alive vs. dead (not alive); patient vs. impatient (not patient). Contradictories may be polar or relative (to hate- to love [not to love doesn't mean "hate"]).

b) CONTRARIES are also mutually opposed, but they admit some possibility between themselves (cold vs. hot; but it's possible to say "cool" vs. hot, cold vs. warm etc.). This group also includes words opposed by the presence of such components of meaning as SEX and AGE (man -woman; man- boy etc.).

c) INCOMPATIBLES' the relations between them are not of contradiction but of exclusion26. They exclude possibilities of other words from the same semantic set (Ex. "red"- doesn't mean that it is opposed to white it means all other colors; the same is true to such words as "morning","day", "night" etc.).

There is another kind of opposition- formed by CONVERSIVES (by Arnold). REVERSIVE ANTONYMS (by Belyaevskaya). Reversive antonyms imply the denotation of the same referent or situation as viewed from different points of view (Ex. to buy vs. to sell; to cause vs. to suffer).

WORD STRUCTURE

• Meaning of morphemes

• Principles of analysis

• Classification of morphemes

1. A morpheme is the smallest indivisible two facet language unit which imples an association of a given meaning with a given sound form. Unlike words, morphemes cannot function independently (they occur in speech only as parts of words).

2.Morphemes have certain semantic peculiarities- they're devoid of grammatical meaning. Concrete lexical meaning is found only in root morphemes. Lexical meaning of affixes is of a generalized character.

Lexical meaning in morphemes may be analyzed in connotational and de-notational components. The connotational aspect of meaning may be found both in root morphemes and affixational morphemes (Ex. deary, dearie, booklet- diminutive meaning; derogatory and positive evaluation: womanish, womanly; or stylistic reference - chlorine - this suffix is mainly used in scientific style).

The part of speech meaning is characteristic of affixal morphemes; moreover, some suffixal morphemes are devoid of any part of meaning but part of speech meaning.

Morphemes possess specific meaning (of their own). They are: a)Differential meaning. Distributional meaning

A). Differential meaning- is the semantic component which serves to distinguish one word from all others containing identical morphemes (Ex. bookshelf, bookcounter, bookcase; cranberry, blackberry).

Doesn't have lexical meaning

B). Distributional meaning- is the meaning of the order and arrangement of morphemes that make up the word (Ex. worker, but never erwork, heartless, but never less heart).

4.1. Classification of Morphemes

4.2 Semantically morphemes may be classified intoroot morphemes and non-root morphemes. The root morpheme is the lexical nucleus of a word. It has an individual lexical meaning and it may possess all other types of meaning characteristic of morphemes, except the part of speech meaning. The root morpheme is isolated as the morpheme common to a set of words making up a wordcluster (like -dislike - liking). Non-root morphemes include inflexions that have only grammatical meaning and are relevant only for the formation of grammatical forms, and

affixational morphemes (affixes). Affixes are relevant (important) for building a stem which is the part of a word which remains unchanged throughout its paradigm. Affixes -же into prefixes and suffixes. A prefix precedes the root morpheme, while the suffix follows it. Affixes possess generalized lexical meaning, part of speech meaning, differential and distributional meanings.

4.3. Structurally, morphemes fall into: free morphemes, bound morphemes and semi-free or semi-bound morphemes.

A free morpheme coincides with the stem. Many root morphemes are free (Ex. heart - hearts; hearty- heartier- the heartiest)

A bound morpheme occurs only as a constituent part of a word (Ex. cordial). Bound morphemes are characteristic of borrowed words (Ex/ tolerable, arrogance).

Semi-free (bound) morphemes can function both as affixes and free morphemes (Ex. ill-bread, ill-timed => "ill" is semi-bound). The status of the meanings of such morphemes is difficult to define: "to feel ill"; but "ill-bred" - seem to be losing their semantic and structural identity with corresponding free morphemes (like dis-, mis-, un- etc.). Self-discipline, self-assurance...

There are cases, however, that are difficult to define:

A.:tele scope

telescope, telegraph - morphemes of Greek and Latin origin. They are devoid of lexical-grammatical meaning and that's why we call them bound morphemes.

В.: Morpheme "man" in "Englishman", "seaman" etc. They are decreasing semantic value of the morpheme "man" led some linguists to believe that "man" is now denoting an agent and is synonymous to the siffix -er. But most linguists still regard the morpheme "man" as the last component to a semi-free morpheme.

WORD-FORMATION

1. According to Смирницкий, word-formation is the system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material available in the language. Words are formed after certain structural and semantic patterns. The main two types of word-formation are: word-derivation and word-composition. There exist other types: semantic word-building (homonymy, polysemy), sound and stress interchange (blood and bleed; to increase - an increase), acronymy (NATO - the initial letters from a word, we read it as a word -[ne t ]), blending (smog), shortening (lab => laboratory). There are also means of replenishing the vocabulary but they are different because they show the result but not the process. Thus we may say that the basic ways for word-derivation are affixation and conversion.

2. The degree of productivity of word-formation and factors that favor it make an important aspect of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within the two types of word-formation. The two general constraints imposed 01 the derivational patterns are: 1. The part of speech in which the pattern functions; 2. The meaning which is attached to it.

Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes: highly productive, productive or semi-productive and non-productive.

Productivity of derivational patterns and affixes shouldn't be identfied with frequency of occurrence in speech (E.g.-er, -ful are active suffixes because they are very frequently used. But if the-er is freely used to coin new words57, occasional words including, the adjectiable suffix-ful isn't productive since no new words seem to be built with this suffix).

3. Affixation is the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to different types of bases. Simple words have zero degree of derivation. Derived words may have the first degree of derivation ("hearty"- first degree of coining ) and the second degree of derivation (heartily). Affixation falls into suffixation and prefixation.

Distinction between prefixal and suffixal derivatives is made according to the last stage of derivation. In terms of constituant morphemes the words like "n-justly" and "unreasonable" are both qualified as prefixal- suffixal derivatives, but from the point of view of derivational analysis these words are different. "Unreasonable" - is prefixal (it is formed by adding un- to reasonable), "unjustly" -formed by adding -ly.

Suffixation is mostly characteristic of noun and adjectives' formation.Prefixation is mostly typical of verb formation. The part of speech meaning has a much greater significance in suffixes than in prefixes.

4. Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. There are about 51 prefixes in the system of modern English wordformation. According to type they are distinguished into: a) prefixes that are correlated with independent words (un-, dis-), and b) prefixes that are correlated with verbs.

There are about 25 convertive prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech (E.g. embronze59).

5. Prefixes may be classified:

a). Diachronically they may be divided into native and foreign,

b). Synchronically.

1. According to the class they preferably form: verb-forming (en-, un-, be-), adjective-forming (un-, in-, il-, ir-) and noun-forming (non-, sub-, ex-).

2. According to the of lexical-grammatical types of the base they are added to:

a). Deverbal - rewrite, overdo, outstay,

b). Denominal- unbutton, detrain, ex-president,

c). Deadjectival- uneasy, biannual.

It is of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefix un- and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, unseen etc.

3. According to their semantic structue prefixes may fall into monosemantic and polysemantic.

4. According to the generic generic denotational meaning they are divided into different groups:

a). Negative prefixes: un-, dis-, non-, in-, a- (e.g. unemployment, non-scientific, incorrect, disloyal, amoral, asymmetry).

b). Reversative or privative60 prefixes: un-, de-, dis- (e.g. untie, unleash, decentralize, disconnect).

c). Pejorative61 prefixes: mis-, mal-, pseudo- (e.g. miscalculate, misinform, maltreat, pseudo-classicism).

d). Prefixes of time and order: fore-, pre-, post-, ex- (e.g. foretell, pre-war, post-war, ex-president), e). Prefix of repetition re- (e.g. rebuild, rewrite), f). Locative prefixes62: super-, sub-, inter-, trans- (e.g. superstructure, subway, inter-continental, transatlantic).

5. According to their stylistic reference:

a). Neutral: un-, out-, over-, re-, under- (e.g. outnumber, unknown, unnatural, oversee, underestimate).

b). Stylistically marked: pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- (e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violet, unilateral) they are bookish.

6. According to the degree of productivity: a). Highly productive b). Productive c). Non-productive

6. Suffixation is the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify the lexical meaning of the base and transfer words to a different part of speech. There are suffixes, however, which do not shift words from one part of speech into another; a suffix of this kind usually transfers a word into a different semantic group, e.g. a concrete noun becomes anabstract one, as in the case with child - childhood, friend- friendship etc. Suffixes may be classified:

1. according to the type of speech formed

a). Noun-suffixes: -er, -dom, -ness, -ation (e.g. teacher, freedom, brightness, justification).

b). Adjective-suffixes: -able, -less, -ful, -ic, -ous (e.g. agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous).

c). Verb-suffixes: -en, -fy, -ize (e.g. darken, satisfy, harmonize) d). Adverb-suffixes: -ly, -ward (e.g. quickly, eastward).

2. According to the lexico-grammatical character of the base the siffix is added to:

a). Deverbal63 suffixes (those added to the verbal base):-er, -ing, -ment, -

able (speaker, reading, agreement, suitable)

b). Denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base):-less, -ish, -ful, -ist,

-some (handless, childish, mouthful, troublesome)

c). De-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base):-en, -ly, -ish,

-ness (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness).

3. According to the meaning expressed by suffixes Proceeding from this principle suffixes are classified into various groups within the bounds of a certain part of speech. For instance, noun-suffixes fall into those denoting:

a). The agent of an action: -er, -ant (e.g. baker, dancer, defendant), b). Appurtenance64: -an, -ian, -ese (e.g. Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, Chinese, Japanese).

c). Collectivity: -age, -dom, -ery (-ry) (e.g. freightage, officialdom, peasantry).

d). Diminutiveness: -ie, -let, -ling (birdie, girlie, cloudlet, booklet, darling).

4. According to the degree of productivity

a). Highly productive

b). Productive

c). Non-productive

5. According to the stylistic value

a). Stylistically neutral:-able, -er, -ing.

b). Stylistically marked:-oid, -i/form, -aceous, -tron.

Homonyms

Homonyms can appear in the language not only as the result of the split of polysemy, but also as the result of levelling of grammar inflexions, when different parts of speech become identical in their outer aspect, e.g. «care» from «caru» and «care» from «carian». They can be also formed by means of conversion, e.g. «to slim» from «slim», «to water» from «water». They can be formed with the help of the same suffix from the same stem, e.g. «reader»/ a person who reads and a book for reading/.

Homonyms can also appear in the language accidentally, when two words coincide in their development, e.g. two native words can coincide in their outer aspects: «to bear» from «beran»/to carry/ and «bear» from «bera»/an animal/. A native word and a borrowing can coincide in their outer aspects, e.g. «fair» from Latin «feria» and «fair « from native «fager» /blond/. Two borrowings can coincide e.g. «base» from the French «base» /Latin basis/ and «base» /low/ from the Latin «bas» /Italian «basso»/.

Homonyms can develop through shortening of different words, e.g. «cab» from «cabriolet», «cabbage», «cabin».

Classifications of homonyms.

Walter Skeat classified homonyms according to their spelling and sound forms and he pointed out three groups: perfect homonyms that is words identical in sound and spelling, such as : «school» - «косяк рыбы» and «школа» ; homographs, that is words with the same spelling but pronounced differently, e.g. «bow» -/bau/ - «поклон» and /bou/ - «лук»; homophones that is words pronounced identically but spelled differently, e.g. «night» - «ночь» and «knight» - «рыцарь».

Another classification was suggested by A.I Smirnitsky. He added to Skeat’s classification one more criterion: grammatical meaning. He subdivided the group of perfect homonyms in Skeat’s classification into two types of homonyms: perfect which are identical in their spelling, pronunciation and their grammar form, such as :»spring» in the meanings: the season of the year, a leap, a source, and homoforms which coincide in their spelling and pronunciation but have different grammatical meaning, e.g. «reading» - Present Participle, Gerund, Verbal noun., to lobby - lobby .

A more detailed classification was given by I.V. Arnold. She classified only perfect homonyms and suggested four criteria of their classification: lexical meaning, grammatical meaning, basic forms and paradigms.

According to these criteria I.V. Arnold pointed out the following groups: a) homonyms identical in their grammatical meanings, basic forms and paradigms and different in their lexical meanings, e.g. «board» in the meanings «a council» and « a piece of wood sawn thin»; b) homonyms identical in their grammatical meanings and basic forms, different in their lexical meanings and paradigms, e.g. to lie - lied - lied, and to lie - lay - lain; c) homonyms different in their lexical meanings, grammatical meanings, paradigms, but coinciding in their basic forms, e.g. «light» / «lights»/, «light» / «lighter», «lightest»/; d) homonyms different in their lexical meanings, grammatical meanings, in their basic forms and paradigms, but coinciding in one of the forms of their paradigms, e.g. «a bit» and «bit» (from « to bite»).

In I. V. Arnold’s classification there are also patterned homonyms, which, differing from other homonyms, have a common component in their lexical meanings. These are homonyms formed either by means of conversion, or by levelling of grammar inflexions. These homonyms are different in their grammar meanings, in their paradigms, identical in their basic forms, e.g. «warm» - «to warm». Here we can also have unchangeable patterned homonyms which have identical basic forms, different grammatical meanings, a common component in their lexical meanings, e.g. «before» an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition. There are also homonyms among unchangeable words which are different in their lexical and grammatical meanings, identical in their basic foms, e.g. « for» - «для» and «for» - «ибо».

Conversion is the formation of a new word through changes in its paradigm. As a paradigm is a morphological category,conversion can also be described as a morphological way of building words. The term "conversion" was introduced by Henry Sweet in 1892 in his New English Grammar. Since that time conversion has been the subject of much controversy. Some linguists treat conversion as a non-affixal word-formation process. However, it is logical to assume that the semantic complexity of a convertive word should manifest itself through its derivational structure with the help of a zero derivational affix.

The essential difference between affixation and conversion is in the following affixation is characterized both by semantic and structural derivation;conversion displays only semantic derivation. E.g. dark- darkness (both structure and meaning are changed), a hand- to hand (only meaning is changed).

The difference between the 2 classes of words in affixation is marked both by a special derivational affix and a paradigm whereas in conversion it's not only by paradigmatic words.

10.2 We can single out the following typical semantic relation in conversion pairs:

1) Verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs):

a). Actions characteristic of the subject (a butcher- to butcher),

b). Instrumental use of the object (a screw - to screw),

c). Acquisition or addition of the objects (fish - to fish = to catch),

d). Deprivation of the object (skin-to skin).

2) Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal nouns):

a). Instance of the action (to move- a move = change of condition).

b). Agent of an action (to bore- a bore).

c). Place of the action (to walk-a walk).

d). Object or result of the action (to peel- a peel78).

As a way of formingwords conversion is extremely productive

A diachronic survey of the present-day stock of

conversion pairs reveals, that not all of them

have been created on the semantic patterns just

referred to. Some of them arose as a result of the

disappearance of inflections in the course of the

historical development of the English language due

to which two words of different parts of speech, e.g. a