lexicology

Lexicology is a part of linguistics dealing with the vocabulary of the language and properties of words as the
main units of language.

Basic terms of Lexicology

The term “word” denotes the basic unit of a given language resulting from the association of a given meaning
with a given group of sounds susceptible of a given grammatical employment.

The term “word-equivalent” denotes set expressions similar to words in so far as they are integrated
semantically not created in speech, but introduced into the act of communication readymade and also because
they are treated like single words (e.g. brother - brethren, older - elder)

Types of Lexicology
The general study of words and vocabulary, irrespective of specific features of any particular language is
known as General Lexicology.

Special Lexicology devotes its attention to the description of characteristic peculiarities of the vocabulary of a
given language.

The evolution of any vocabulary as well as of its single elements forms the object of Historical Lexicology. This
branch of linguistics discusses the origin of various words, the change and development and investigates
linguistic and extralinguistic forces.

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 structures as the characteristics inherent in the system. The
Descriptive Lexicology of English deals with English words in its morphological and semantic structure.

Synchronic and diachronic approaches in linguistics

There are two principal approaches in linguistics to the study of language material: synchronic and diachronic.

This is a methodical 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 (F. De Saussure)

Synchronic approach is concerned with the vocabulary of a language as it exists at a given time. Diachronic
approach deals with the changes and the development of vocabulary in the course of time.

The two approaches should not be contrasted or set one against the other, they are connected and
independent: every linguistic system actually exists in a state of constant development so that the syntactic
state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic revolution.

e.g. Old French beggar –> Old English beg (they re-interpreted the morphological structure)

The notion of lexical system

The term “system” denotes not merely the sum total of English words. To collect and explain them is the task
of lexicology.
The term “system” denotes a coherent homogeneous whole (связное однородное целое), constituted by
interdependent elements of the same order, related in a certain specific way. Lexicology studies this whole by
determining the properties of its elements and the different relationships existing between them within a
language, as well as the way in which they are influenced by extra-linguistic relations.

The theory of reflection

Objective reality is approximate, but correctly reflected in the human mind. The notions rendered in the
meanings of words are generalized 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, e.g. “sea” denotes
not only a great expense of salt water as opposed to dry land of fresh water as in the expression “by sea and
land”, but also the local motion or state of the sea, a wave, a quantity of something and to the sea by its very
vastness: a sea of joy.

The out word reality is sometimes even directly reflected in the word, e.g. “splash” is motivated by certain
similarity between the sound which made it up and those referred to by its sense.

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in linguistics

Syntagmatic relations are based on the liner character of speech. That is on the influence of context.

The term «context» is defined as the minimum stretch of speech necessary and sufficient to determine which
of the possible meanings of the polysemantic word is used, e.g. Blue eyes, feels blue.

Microcontext is that of a sentence or a syntagma or a phrase. Sometimes is not sufficient and a broader
context and microcontext is necessary, e.g. Blue shops, buff shops — партии у Диккенса.

Paradigmatic linguistic relationships determine the vocabulary system and may be subdivided into:

1. the interdependence of elements within words, e.g. Uneatable;

2. the interdependence of words within the vocabulary, e.g. Nice

The influence of other aspects in the same language

1. The connection of Lexicology with phonetics.

The word is studied in other branches of linguistics and not in Lexicology only. The connection of Lexicology
with phonetics is important: on the acoustic words consist of phonemes and therefore phonemes participate in
signification. They have no meaning of their own. The form meaning unity is introduced only on a higher level
that is on the level of morphemes. Nevertheless as their function is building up morphemes, phonemes are
lexicologically relevant. They serve to distinguish between meanings.

Words unity is conditioned by a number of phonological features. Phonemes follow each other in a fixed
sequence so that [pit] is different from [tip]; hope — надежда, [hip] — бедро, [hop] — обруч.

Discrimination (распознавание) between the words may be based upon stress (‘import — im’port). Historical
phonetics and phonology can be of great use in the diachronic study of synonyms, homonyms or polysemy.
2. Connection of Lexicology and grammar of even isolated words as presented in dictionaries had a different
relation to the grammatical system of the language because they belong to some part of speech and confirm to
some lexico-grammatical characteristics of the word class, to which they belong to.

The grammatical form and function of the word may affect its lexical meaning, e.g. «To go» in present and
continuous tense = «to attend».

The survival (сохранение) of 2 grammatically equivalent forms of the same word helps to distinguish between
its lexical meanings, e.g. Brothers — brethren (community).

A form that originally expressed grammatical meaning may become 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, e.g. Arm — рука, arms — оружие.

The grammatical form is lexicalized.

The ties (связь) between Lexicology and grammar are very strong in the sphere of word formation. The
characteristic features of English word-building, the morphological structure of the English word are dependent
on the peculiarity of the English grammatical system.

Semasiology
The branch of Lexicology that is devoted to the study of meaning is known as semasiology. Meaning is one of
the most controversial terms in the theory of language. On the one hand the understanding of this term seems
to present no difficulty at all, on the other hand – the scientific definition of meaning has been the issue of
heated discussion.

I. Referential approach
Referential approach to meaning tries to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing the
interdependence between words, things and concepts they denote. The essential feature of the approach is
that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meanings: the sound form of the
linguistic sign, the concept underlying this sound-form, and the referent (the object of reality to which the
linguistic sign refers). The most popular referential module of meaning is the so called “basic triangle”
(семантический треугольник или треугольник Огдена-Ричардса)
Связь между референтом и словом опосредована (через голову). От референта в голову, потом на
язык.

As can be seen from the diagram the sound form sign «dove» is connected with our concept of the word which
it denotes and through it with the referent, that is the actual bird. Hence, the implication of that meaning is in
some form connected with the referent.

1. It is clearly seen that the sound-form of the word is not identical with its meaning: «dove» is the sound-form
used to denote a bird. There is no inherent connection between this particular sound-cluster (звуко-ряд) and
the meaning of the word dove. The connection is controversial.

1) This can be proved by comparing the sound-form of different languages conveying one and the same
meaning

2) There are identical sound-forms with different meaning in different languages:

To love – to laugh
What can I do? – Водки найду.
Is my love – Измайлов
Марина (имя) – марина (художественный термин, означающий морской пейзаж)

3) Homonyms and historical changes in pronunciation do not influence its meaning.

2. When we examine a word we see that its meaning, though closely connected with the underlying concept, is
not identical with it. Concept is the thought of the object that singles out its essential features. Being the result
of abstraction and generalization of concepts are intrinsically almost the same for the whole humanity in one
and the same period of its historical development. The meanings of words however are different in different
languages.

Дом 1) здание house; 2) семейный очаг home

Synonyms express the same concept but possess different meaning: to see & to behold созерцать.

As to the difference between meaning & the referent, it should be mentioned that meaning is linguistic while
the referent is beyond the scope of language. We can denote one and the same object by different words.
There are some words that don't have referents (Дед Мороз). Meaning is the interrelation between the sound
form and the referent.
II. Criticism of referential approach
1. Meaning comprises the interrelation of linguistic sign with categories and phenomena outside the scope of
language as neither referents no concepts belong to language;

2. Referential approach to meaning operates with subjective and intangible (нематериальный, неосязаемый)
mental processes.

III. Componential Analysis

In the 50s of the XX century attempts have been made to find efficient procedures for the analysis and
interpretation of meaning. Special procedure of componential analysis has been developed to determine the
components of each meaning and to represent it as a combination of elementary senses; componential
analysis proceeds through the assumption that word-meaning is not an unanalyzable whole but it can be
decomposed into elementary semantic components.

Saleswoman: + animated

+ human

+ adult

+ sex

+ profession

IV. Functional approach

It belongs to structural linguistics and the essence of it is that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied
only through its relation to other linguistic units and not through its relation to either concept or referent.

Move

Movement

He moved quickly (pronoun + verb + adverb)

His movement was sudden (personal pronoun + noun + verb)

Мы рассматриваем дистрибуцию – положение в цепи

The distribution (the environment of an element in a linguistic chain) of “move & movement” is different so the
meaning is different too. Thus semantic investigation is confined to the analysis of the difference or sameness
of meaning; meaning is understood from the function.

V. Grammatical meaning (GM)

Linguists have noticed that word-forms as girls, tables, winters etc. though denoting widely different objects of
reality have smth in common. The grammatical meaning is defined as the component of meaning recurrent in
identical sets of individual forms of different words, for example, read, put, played, asked. (G>L Служебные
части речи)

VI. Lexical meaning (LM)

Unlike the GM the lexical one is identical in all the forms of the word. Thus the word-forms go-going-gone
possess different grammatical meaning of tense, person, etc, but each form possesses the same semantic
component denoting the process of movement.

The difference between the Lexical and Grammatical components of meaning lies in the way they are
conveyed. Both the L and G meaning make up the word-meaning as neither can exist without the other (L>G
знаменательные части речи)

Types of Lexical meaning

It is generally known that LM is the realization of the notion by means of a definite language system.

1. Denotational and connotational meanings – the notional content of the word is expressed by the
denotational meaning (DM). To denote is to serve as linguistic expression for a notion or as a name for
an actually existing object referred to by a word. All the words of a language possess DM. The
emotional content of the word if its capacity to evoke (вызывать, возбуждать) is expressed through the
connotational meaning which makes up counterpart of the meaning (bad, awful).

2. Free and bound meaning (academician Виноградов) – the free meaning of the word coincides with the
denotational meaning and does depend on form and the makeup of the word combination. The word
can have it out of context, e.g. to run quickly. Bound meanings may be of two types: a) phraseologically
bound meanings which depend of the lexical make up of a set expression, to run in one’s head; to run
into the blood; b) grammatically bound meanings which depend on the grammatical form of the word
combination, ‘to make’ and ‘to make smb do smth’. ***small hours – часть суток

3. Prof. Irina Vladimirovna Arnold’s classification of lexical types of meaning

 Synchronic

A. Semantic B. Stylistic

Direct Neutral

a) Concrete (quick motion)

b) Abstract (quick answer) Stylistically marked

c) Broad
a) Term – 1 (quick
d) Narrow return)

b) Poetic
e) Descriptive
c) slang

Figurative

a) Metaphoric (quick hear,

quick wit)

b) Metonymic

Central

Motivation

Motivation is the relationship between the morphemic or phonemic composition and structural pattern of the
word on the one hand and its meaning on the other.

Types of motivation

Phonetical mot.

The word "whisper" is motivated by a certain similarity between the sounds which make it up and those,
referred to by the sense; its motivation is phonetical.

Morphological mot.

The derived word "reread" is motivated inasmuch (???) as its morphological structure suggests the idea of
reading again; the motivation is morphological and stops on the word level: the morphemes "re-" and "-read"
aren't motivated.
Semantic mot.

It's based on the coexistence of direct and figurative meaning. E.g. "mouth" — direct is "a part of a face", the
word is not motivated, figurative is "any opening", motivation is semantic.

Eyewash — direct is "remedy for eyes", figurative is "to lie" очковтирательство

Sound symbolism (теория звукового символизма)

Фоносемантика
Воронин Станислав Васильевич

Semantic change
The development and change of the semantic structure of the word is always a source of quantitative and
qualitative development of the vocabulary.

I) Quantitative development

1) Specialization
In passing from general usage into some special sphere of communication a word, as a rule, undergoes some
sort of specialisation of its meaning.

E.g. "case".
1. Case (medical) — случай
2. Case (law) — дело
3. Case (gram) — падеж
The meaning became more specialised.

So we see that a word which formally represented a notion of broader scope has come to render a notion of
narrower scope. When the meaning is specialised, the word can make fewer objects. At the same time the
content of the notion is being enriched.

The reduction of the scope, accounts for the term "specialisation" (narrowing of meaning)
DE "mete" (food) => MnE "meat"
OG "deor" (any animal) => MnE "deer"
Вытеснили

Room:
1. Part of a flat
2. Space
Сосуществуют
The previous and the new meanings can coexist in the structure of a polysemantic word.

2) Generalization
The process reverse to specialisation is termed "generalisation". In this case the scope of the new notion is
wider than that of the original one. Whereas the content of the notion is poorer. In most cases generalisation is
combined with a high order of abstraction. The transition of a concrete meaning to an abstract one is a most
frequent feature in the semantic history of words. The change may be explained as occasioned by situations,
in which not all the features of the notion rendered are of equal importance for the message. For example, the
term “aroma” originally referred to the smell of spices and over time became used to refer to good smells in
general. The English word “aroma” was adopted in the thirteenth century and comes from the Greek “aroma”
meaning “seasoning, spice, or sweet herb.” By 1841 its meaning had generalized to “fragrance.”

Specialisation and generalisation are identified on the evidence of comparing logical notions expressed by the
meaning of the word.

II) Qualitative development

If the linguist is guided by psychological considerations and has to go by the type of association at work in the
transfer of the name of one object to another and a different one, he will observe that the most frequent
transfers are based on associations of similarity or contiquity.

1) Metaphor
(from rhetoric, Greek, "to transfer" + "a change") It's a transfer of name based on the association of similarity
and, thus, is actually a hidden comparison. It presents a method of description which likens one thing to
another by referring to it, as if it were some other one.

E.g. "fox" — лиса и хитрый

Metaphors are based upon:

A) Different types of similarity. e.g. The leg of the table
B) The analogy between duration of time and space. e.g. Long distance/speech
C) Transitions of proper names into common ones. e.g. Cicero — a Cicero
In a dead metaphor (стертая метафора) the comparison is completely forgotten.

2) Metonymy
It's a shift of names between things that are known to be in some way or other connected in reality. The
transfer may be conditioned by:
A) Spatial relations. e.g. O.E. "bok" => MnE "book"
B) Casual relations (причинно-следственные). e.g. ME "killen" (hit someone on the head) => MnE "kill"
(murder)
C) Instances of symbol for the thing symbolised. e.g. crown — корона/монархи
D) Functional change. e.g. LAT "pena" (перо, кот. писали) => OE "pen" => MnE "pen" (thing for writing)
E) Common names derived from proper names metonymically. e.g. china — China (фарфор — Китай)

III) Minor types of semantic change

1) Hyperbole
It's an exaggerated statement, not meant to be understood literally, but expressing an intensely emotional
attitude of the speaker toward he's speaking about. e.g. You will be the death of me.

2) Litotes [laɪˈtəʊtiːz]
It's defined as expressing the affirmative by the negative of its contrary. e.g. Good = not bad, big = not small.

3) Irony
It's expressing of one's meaning by words of opposite meaning, especially a simulated adoption of the
opposite point of view for the purpose of ridicule. e.g. You've got us into a nice mess!
4) Euphemism
It's a substitution of a word of mild or vague connotation(s) for expressing rough, unpleasant or for some other
reasons unmentionable.
e.g. mad => queer
dead => late

Gen.+spec. — logical, it takes the word a generation to undergo these processes

Metaph. + metonym. — psychological
Косвенная номинация это когда человек не может сразу расшифровать метафору

Meaning relationships in paradigmatics (Semantic classification of words)

I. Semantic (conceptual) fields

Words can be classified, according to the concepts underlying the meaning. This classification is based on the
theory of semantic fields (closely knit sectors of vocabulary, each characterised by a common concept). The
members of the semantic field are joined together by some common semantic component (the common
denominator of meaning).

All the members of the semantic field are semantically interdependent, as each member helps to delimit and
determine the meaning of its neighbours. So the semantic field is viewed as set of lexical items in which the
meaning of each is determined by the others. Words, making up the semantic field, belong to different parts of
speech.

Semantic field «space»:

● nouns: place, area

● verbs: to extend, to spread
● adjectives: spacious, roomy, vast
● adverbs: broadly, vastly

II. Lexico-semantic groups (ЛСГ)

There may be comparatively small lexical groups of words belonging to the same part of speech and linked by
a common concept.
Milk cheese butter cream meat — make up a group with the concept of food as the common denominator of
meaning.
The criterion for joining words together into lexico-semantic groups is the identity of the component of their
meaning found in all the lexical units, making up these lexical groups. Any component may be chosen to
represent the group:
Saleswoman + man/baby/child/person — people
Saleswoman/sailor/pilot/teacher — profession

Lexico-semantic groups play an important role in determining individual meaning of polysemantic words in
different lexical contexts.
To take a bus/train/car — to go
To take tea — to drink
III. Hyponymic structures
By "hyponymy" is meant a semantic relationship of inclusion.
Vehicle — car/bus/train
Hyponymic relationships may be viewed as hierarchical relationships between the meaning of general and
individual terms.

IV. Synonymy
Lexical units may be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity. Traditionally synonyms are described as
words, different in soundform, but similar or identical in meaning. This definition has been criticised on several
points:
1. It seems impossible to speak of identical meanings of words as such because this part of the definition can't
be applied to polysemantic words.
2. It seems impossible to speak of identity or similarity of lexical meaning as a whole, as it is only the
denotational component that may be described as similar.
To begin — to commence
(denotational meaning is the same, the stylistic one is different)
3. It seems impossible to speak of the identity of meanings, because it is very rare, even among
monosemantic words.

Criteria of synonymy

Attempts have been made to introduce into the definition the criterion of interchangeability. The words are
synonymous if either of them can curve in the same context, but such an approach invites criticism: such
cases are very rare, there are no complete synonyms, as words may differ in their stylistic reference (полные
синонимы встречаются только в терминологии).

So we assume that synonyms are words, interchangeable in some context.

Synonyms are words, different in their soundform, but similar in the denotational meaning and
interchangeable in at least some context.

Sources of synonymy

1. Borrowings
2. Words from dialects
3. Words from slang
4. Professional differentiation
5. Stylistic differentiation

V. Antonymy
Lexical units may be classified by the criterion of semantic polarity.
Kind — unkind
Kind — cruel/wicked

Classification of antonyms

1. Contradictories (don't admit any of the intermediate members): perfect — imperfect

2. Contraries: cold — cool — warm — hot
3. Incompatibles (from to compete): black ≠ white, Monday ≠ Friday
VI. Polysemy
Most of English words are polysemantic. Here we are faced with the problem of interrelation and
interdependence of various meanings in the semantic structure of one and the same word.

Diachronic approach

If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development of as a change in the
semantic structure of the word. Polysemy in diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous
meaning(s) and, at the same time, acquire one or several new ones. The main source of polysemy is a
change in the semantic structure of the word. Polysemy may arise from homonymy. Some meanings may
become obsolete or disappear.

Synchronic approach

Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the same words, as a
certain historical period of development of English.
The problem of interrelation and interdependence of dif.meanings, making up the semantic structure of the
word, comes to the fore. Whereas the basic meaning occurs in various contexts, minor meanings are
observed only in certain contexts. The frequency of the occurrence in speech is considered to be an objective
criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings. Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of
meanings of a polysemantic word.

To sum it up, the problem of polysemy is mainly the problem of interrelation and interdependence of various
meanings of the same word. Words are felt as correlated, if their central meanings coincide.

VII. Homonymy
Words, identical in soundform, but different in meaning are called homonyms.

Classifications of homonyms

A) 1. Full homonymy (words are homonymous in all their forms)

2. Partial homonymy (homonymy of individual word forms)

B) 1. Lexical homonymy (the difference is confined to the lexical meaning only)

2. Lexico-grammatical homonymy (not only the difference of the lexical meaning of the homonymous word
forms, but a difference in the grammatical meanings as well)
3. Grammatical homonymy.

Homonyms may be classified on the basis of sound form, graphic form and meaning into:

1. Homographs (identical in spelling but different in sound form and meaning)

2. Homophones (identical in sound form but different in their meaning)
3. Perfect homonyms (identical in both spelling and sound form)

Sources of homonymy.
1. Divergent meaning development
2. Convergent sound development of two or more different words
The demarcation line between polysemy and homonymy
If polysemy is viewed diachronically, then the case of sound convergents of two or more words may be
regarded as homonyms, because they trace back to etymologically different words.
Synchronically, the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is based on the semantic criterion: if a
connection between various meanings of the word is felt by the speaker, these are to be considered as
individual meanings of a polysemantic word. Otherwise, it is a case of homonymy.

Word-structure
A great many of words are made up of smaller units, each possessing sound-form and meaning. They are
referred to as morphemes defined as the smallest indivisible language unit. Unlike a word autonomous and
occurs in speech only as a constituent part of the word.

All the representations of the given morpheme that manifest alteration are called allomorphs (variants of
morphemes):

please /pliːz/
pleasant /plez/
pleasure /pleʒ/

Segmentable and non-segmentable words

All English words fall into 2 classes:

1) Segmentable words that are allowing of segmentation into morphemes

e.g. agreement, quickly

2) Non-segmentable words (those not allowing of such segmentation)

e.g. dog, house, desk

Types of morphemic segmentability of words

1. Complete segmentability is characteristic of words the morphemic structure of which is transparent
enough and the morphemes can be easily isolated.
e.g. happiness, unlucky

2. Conditional morphemic segmentability characterizes words whose segmentation into constituent

morphemes is doubtful for semantic reasons
e.g. retain, remain, detain (re, de - conditional morphemes условные морфемы)
Such morphemes do not rise to the full status of morphemes for semantic reasons, they are called
pseudomorphemes.
 3. Defective morphemic segmentability is the property of words whose component morphemes seldom or
never occur in other words
e.g. hamlet - деревушка

Semantic classification of morphemes

Semantically, we distinguish root and non-root morphemes.

The root morpheme is the lexical nucleus of a word, it has an individual lexical meaning shared by no other
morpheme as a language.

It is isolated as the morpheme common to a set of words making up a word cluster

e.g. teach – teacher – teaching

Non-root morphemes include inflectional or affixational morphemes. Inflections carry only grammatical
meaning and are relevant for the formation of word-forms, whereas affixes are relevant for building various
types of stems (the part of the word that remains unchanged through its paradigm)

Structural classification of morphemes

1. A free morpheme is one that coincides with the stem or a word form e.g.friendship

2. A bound morpheme occurs only as a constituent part of the word (affixes)

3. Semi-bound morphemes are morphemes that can function in a morphemic sequence both as an affix and
as a free morpheme

e.g. to sleep well (free), well-done (bound)

4. Morphemes of Greek and Latin origin are bound-root morphemes of a special kind. These morphemes are
semi-free.

5. Morphemes occupying intermediate position, they are changing their class membership

e.g. man-servant /æ/

fisherman /ə/

The phonetic reduction of the root vowel is due to the decreasing semantic value of the morpheme and it
denotes an agent rather than a male adult. This morpheme is semi-free.

Procedure of morphemic analysis

This procedure segments the word into constituent morphemes according to the method of immediate and
ultimate constituents.

I.C. – immediate constituent

U.C. – ultimate constituent

This method is based on a binary principle, i.e. each stage of the procedure involves two components the word
immediately breaks into. At each stage these two components are referred to as immediate constituents. Each
I.C. at the next stage of analysis is broken into two smaller meaningful elements. The analysis is completed
when we arrive at constituents incapable of further division into morphemes – ultimate constituents.

e.g. friendliness
friend liness
I.C. = U.C. li I.C=U.C. ness
I.C=U.C.

Historical changeability of word-structure

Changes in the phonetic and semantic structure and in the stress pattern of polymorphic words may bring
about a number of changes in the morphemic structure.

1. Certain morphemes may become fused together or lost altogether.

Root-morphemes may turn into affixes, polymorphic words may become monomorphic – the process of
simplification

e.g. O.E. freondskipe (two roots) –> M.E. friendship (root and suffix)

2. Sometimes the spelling of a word as compared with the sound form reflects the changes the word has
undergone

e.g. cupboard (board in which cups are kept)

3. The process of reinterpretation

Old French beggar –> English to beg

Word-formation

WF is the system of different types of words and the process of creating new words from the material are
available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns, e. g. driver (verb+er).
The meaning of the derived noun «driver» is related to the meaning of the stem “driven” (to direct the course of
a vehicle and the suffix -er meaning an active agent). So a driver is one who drives a vehicle. Likewise
compounds resulting from two or more stems join together to form a new word are also built on quite definite
structural and semantic patterns and formulas, e.g. snow-white (noun+adjective).

Basic ways of WE

I. Affixation
is generally defined as deformation of words by adding derivation affixes to different types of basis.
Derived words formed by affixation may be the result of one or several applications of word-formation rule and
thus the stems of words making up a word-cluster (словообразовательное гнездо) enter into derivational
relations of different degree.

● the zero degree of derivation is ascribed to simple words whose stem is homonymous with a word-form
and often with a root-morpheme, e.g. atom, devote

● derived words whose basis are built on simple stem and thus are formed by the application of one
derivational affix are described as having the first degree of derivation, e g atomic, devotion

● derived words by two consecutive stages of coining possess the second degree of derivation, e.g.
atom-ic-al, devo-tion-al.

Affixation is subdivided suffixation and prefixation. Analysis of suffixal and prefixal derivatives reveals essential
difference between them. In MnE: suffixation is mostly characteristic of noun and adj formation, while
prefixation is mostly typical of word-formation.

Prefixation
It is deformation ща words with the help of prefixes. Scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of
word-derivation. Regarding prefixes as derivational affixes, which differ essentially both from root-morphemes
and non-derivational prepositive morphemes. Opinions differ concerning the interrelation of the functional
status of certain individual groups of morphemes which occur as the first component part of words. Some
scholars (H. Marchand) analyze words: to overdo (изощряться), to underestimate (недооценивать) as
compound words, the first component of which are locative particles, not prefixes. Such words as: income,
on-looker, to outhouse (выселять) are qualified as compounds with locative particles as the first element.

There are more than 50 prefixes in the system of MnE word-formation. Of prefixal derivatives the greatest
number are verbs more than 40%, adjectives comprise more than 30% and noun make up more than 20%,
The number prefixal derivatives within a certain part of speech is in inverse proportion to the actual number of
prefixes. More than 20 form verbs, more than 40 make adjectives, about 40 — nouns.

Correlated and non-correlated prefixes

1 the first group form prefixes which are not correlated with any independent word, e.g. un- re- dis- etc.

2 the second group form prefix which are correlated with functional words, e.g. outdo (изощряться), update,
overdo (переработать). These prefixes are qualified as semi-bound morphemes which implies that they occur
in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes. But prefixes differ from
the words in the following:

● they have a more generalized meaning

● they deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the independent words

● they tend to develop meaning not found in the correlated words

● they form regular sets of words of the same semantic type.

Prefixes can’t only modify the lexical meaning of words, but they can transfer words to a different part of
speech. Such prefixes are called convective prefixes, e.g. train — to detrain (выходить из поезда), bus — to
debus, reach — to enrich.
A close interdependence between the meaning of a polysemantic affix and the lexico-grammatical group to
which belongs the basis is revealed. This interdependence results in the difference between structural and
structural-semantic derivational patterns the prefix form en- + N = verb — if the N denotes articles of jewelry
than verbs will denote actions of putting these articles on, robe — to enrobe, jewel — to enjewell.

Classification of prefixes
Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

1. according to the class of words they preferably form

2. as to the type of lexico-grammatical character of the base they are added to inter:

a) deverbal, e g rewrite
b) denominal - unbutton
c) deadjectival - uneasy

3. semantically prefixes fall into mono (re-) and polysemantic (un-)

4. as it the generic denotational meaning there are different groups:

a) negative —un-, non-, in-, dis-, a-, incorrect

b) privative — untie, disunite, decode
c) pejorative — mis-, pseudo-
d) prefixes of time and order — pre-, post-, ex, fore-
e) prefix of repetition
f) locative prefixes — superstructure, subway

5. from the point of view of their stylistic reference:

a) neutral — unknown
b) stylistically marked — pseudoscientific

6. as to the degree productivity

«un-» of Germanic origin. There are two prefixes «un-»1 negative pyc «tie»

un-1, unnatural, unwell, unlearned неграмотный

un-2, to do - to undo, to bind - to unbind

pre- Romanic origin, prehistoric, prewar, to predetermine, predisposition

re- rewrite, reread; resign еще раз подписать, remark еще раз пометить

post- postwar, postpostmerridean

counter- counteraction, counterattack, counterbalance

sub- RO, subdivide, subconscious

inter- RO, interaction взаимодействие, interchange взаимообмен

extra- RO, extraterritorial за пределами страны, extra official, extraordinary

Classifications of of suffixes
1. according to the part of speech formed:

a) N suffixes «dom», -ness

b) adj eatable, meaningless, spoonful
c) V widen, classify, memorize
d) adv «-ly», «-ward»

2. suffixes may be classified into various groups according to the lexico-grammatical character of the
base the suffix is added to:

a) deverbal suffixes, e g speaker, agreement

b) denominal, helpless, childish
c) deadjectival, deepen, quickly, yellowish

3. according to the sense expressed by a set of suffixes, e g dancer, speaker, teacher — agent or suffixes
of the diminutiveness ymenbumresuocts girlie, booklet

4. 4 from the point of view of their stylistical reference

5. 5 according to the degree of their productivity

suffixes of Ns:

- er, Latin, doer of the action, e g trainer, louder; profession - worker, writer; situational Ns — sleeper, eater,
heavy eater, giggler хохотушка; the giver тот кто давал книги, the breakfaster тот кто завтракал, interrupter
тот кто вмешался в разговор; tools — cutter, transmitter

- ist, profession, e.g. communist, pianist etc

- ism, abstract Ns, criticism

N + ie/y, girlie, deary душечка

V + ing, swelling

N+ ism, heroism

N + ist, Darwinist,

adj + ness, softness

V+ able, eatable

N+ an, Italian

N+ ed, wooded

adj + ish, blackish

N + ish, wolfish

N + less, careless

N+ like, comrade like

N+ly, friendly

N+ y, watery
adj + ly, slowly

N + ate, oxygenate

N+ ify, gasify

adj + ise, materialize

II. Conversion
Conversion is highly productive in MnE. The term “conversion” refers to the numerous cases, primarily initial
forms of two words belonging to different parts of speech: work - to work, love - to love. If we referred to these
word pairs from the point of view of their morphemic structure, we’d see that they are all root-words. On the
derivational level one of them should be referred to derived words, as it belongs to a different part of speech
and is understood through semantic and structural relations with the other, that is motivated by it. Let us
consider what server a word-building means in these cases. It would appear that the N is formed from the verb
(or vice versa) without any morphological change, but on a closer investigation we see that the two words
differ in the paradigm. Thus it is the paradigm that is used as a word-building means. Hence conversion is a
formation of new words through changes in the paradigm.

The most frequent cases of conversion are: formation from nouns and vice versa.

Opinions differ on the possibility of creating adjectives from nouns through conversion.

The problem of “stone wall”

N + N (compound)

N (attribute) + N

(N -> Adj) + N

Бином

Conversion pairs are distinguished by the structural identity of the root and phonetic identity of the stem of
each of the two words. Synchronically we deal with pairs of words related through conversion that coexist in
Modern English. Here the question if the words have the same stems or not comes to the fore. The stem
carries quite a definite part of speech meaning and also some lexical meaning. The lexical meaning of the root
morpheme and the part of speech meaning of the stem form the meaning of the whole word. It is the stem that
requires a definite paradigm.

A careful examination of the relationship between the lexical meaning of the root morpheme and the part of
speech meaning of the stem within a conversion pair shows that in one of the two words the former does not
correspond to the latter.

E.g. a hand (предмет, значение предметности) – to hand (действие)

New conversion pairs are created on the analogy of those already existing in the word stock on the semantic
patterns. Conversion is highly productive in the formation of new words, especially from compound Ns. E.g. “to
tear gas”

Diachronic survey of conversion pairs shows that some of them are a result of disappearance of inflexions in
the course of historical development of English, due to which a V and a N coincided in pronunciation. E.g. OE
“lufian” – MnE “love”; OE “luvu” – MnE “love”.
 N -> V

pen – ручка to pen – записывать, сочинять

doctor – доктор to doctor – лечить, подделывать

fox – лиса to fox – хитрить

arch – изгиб to arch – изгибаться дугой

anger – злость to anger – злить, сердить

bag – сумка to bag – класть в мешок

broom – метла to broom – мести, подметать

crowd – толпа to crowd – толпиться, теснить

weep – плач to weep – плакать, оплакивать

screw – винт to screw – закручивать

police – полиция to police – охранять, контролировать

father – отец to father – быть отцом, порождать

ape – обезьяна to ape – обезьянничать

wolf – волк to wolf – жадно есть

mouse – мышь to mouse – истреблять мышей

fish – рыба to fish – рыбачить, ловить рыбу

bed – кровать to bed – укладывать в постель

pocket – карман to pocket – класть в карман, красть

stone – камень to stone – вынуть косточку из плода

bill – счёт to bill – отсылать счёт

vector – вектор to vector – давать направление

V -> N

to stroll – прогуливаться stroll

to start – начинать start

to flex – гнуть, разминаться flex

to tear – рвать tear

to slide – скользить slide

to contest – оспаривать, соперничать contest

to fall – падать fall

to switch – переключать, перемещать switch

to catch – ловить catch

to dump – выкидывать dump

to look – смотреть look

to sleep – спать sleep

to take off – спать take-off

to work out – заниматься спортом workout

Adj -> N
 intellectual an intellectual

provincial a provincial

casuals casuals

nylons nylons

poor the poor

rich the rich

III. Word composition (compounding)

Compounds are made up of two immediate constituency which are both derivational bases. Compounds are
inseparable vocabulary units. They are formally and semantically dependent on the constituent bases, and the
semantic relations between them reflect the relations between the motivating units.

Structurally, compounds are characterized by the specific order and arrangement, in which bases follow one
another. The order in which the two bases are placed within a compound is fixed in MnE and it’s the second IC
that makes the head member of the word, that is its structural and semantic centre. The head-member is of
basic importance, as it preconditions both lexico-grammatical and semantic features of the first component.

Phonetically compounds are marked by a specific structure. No phonemic changes of bases occur in
composition, but the second compound acquires a new stress pattern, different from the stress in the
motivating units. E.g. “key”+”hole”=”keyhole”

Compounds have three stress patterns:

1. A high stress on the first component. E.g. ’honeymoon

2. A double stress. E.g. ‘mad-,doctor

3. A Level stress. E.g. ‘arm-‘chair

Graphically most compounds have two types of spelling – they are spelled either solidly or with a hyphen. Both
types of spelling, when accompanied by structural and phonetic peculiarities, serve as a sufficient indication of
inseparability of compounds in contradistinction to phrases.

Semantically compounds are generally motivated units. The meaning of the compound is derived from the
combined lexical meanings of its components. The semantic peculiarity of the derivational bases and the
semantic difference between the base and the stem, on which the latter is built, is most obvious in compounds.

The lexical meaning of a compound is derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components and the
structural meaning of its distributional patters.

The semantic centre of the compound is the lexical meaning of the second component, modified and restricted
by the meaning of the first.
Motivation in compounds may be full, partial and zero. E.g. “sky-blue”, “flower-bed” – клумба, “eyewash –
очковтирательство.

Functionally compounds are viewed as different part of speech. It’s the head member of the compound that is
its second IC that is indicative of the grammatical and lexical category the compound belongs to.

Compounds are found in all parts of speech, but most of them are Ns and Adjs. Each part of speech is
characterized by its set of derivational patterns and their semantic variants.

Classifications of compounds:

1. According to the degree or semantic independence of components, compounds are classified into:

a. Coordinative, in which the second IC is semantically equally important. E.g. “girlfriend”,

“oak-tree”. These compounds fall into:

i. Reduplicative, made up by the repetition of the same

base. E.g. “goody-goody” – паинька, "fifty-fifty”;

ii. Compounds formed by joining the phonetically varied

rhythmic twin forms. E.g. “chit-chat” – болтовня, “sing-song” –
песенка, мотивчик;

iii. Additive compounds, bult on stems of the independently

functioning words of the same part of speech. E.g.
“secretary-stenographer”, “actor-manager”.

b. Subordinate compounds are neither structurally, nor semantically equal in importance, but
are based on the domination of the head, which is the second IC. E.g. “icy-cold”, “sky-blue”;

2. According to different parts of speech;

3. According to the means by which components are joined together:

a. Compounds formed with the help of a linking element. E.g. “statesman”;

b. Compounds formed without a linking element:

i. Syntactic compounds in which the order of bases, which

runs counter to the order in which the motivating words can be
brought together under the rules of syntax of the language. E.g.
“red-hot” – раскалённый докрасна, “oil-rich” – богатый нефтью;

ii. Syntactic compounds, whose components are placed in

the order that resembles the order of words in free phrases,
arranged according to the rules of syntax of MnE. E.g. “blue-bell”;

4. According to the type of bases:

a. Compounds proper (formed by joining together bases built on the stems or on the word
forms of independently functioning words with or without the help of a linking element). E.g.
“age-long” – длящийся всю жизнь;

b. Derivational compounds which differ from compounds proper in the nature of bases and
their second IC. E.g. “long-legged”, “dark-headed”, etc.

5. According to the structural semantic correlation with free phrases:

 a. Adjectival-nominal compound adjectives. E.g. “skin-deep”, “age-long”;

b. Verbal-nominal compound Ns. E.g. “wage-cut”, “peace-fighter”;

c. Nominal compound Ns. E.g. “horse-race”, “arm-chair”.

Chain-smoker – курящий сигарету за сигаретой

Xmas <- Christmas

Wastepaper-basket

Androcentric: arm-chair

Pick-pocket – вор-карманник

Redneck – неотёсанный человек, белый батрак

Apposition

Bitter-sweet

Kill-joy, home-grown, tearstained face

Wall-flower

Nightcap

Bathrobe, suitcase, identify card, nightclub, summerhouse

Shedog, hegoat, earache, pinprick

Strict mean: sunrise, handshake, eyeball, grasshopper, winter sport, tablecloth

Anglo-American, bitter-sweet, lifelong, bath towel, sunglasses

The main ways of word formation are affixation, conversion and compounding. Other word forming processes
are based on different principles and are excluded from the main system of word formation.

Minor types of word formation:

1. Shortening. E.g. Examination – exam;

2. Blending. E.g. Smoke+fog=smog;

3. Acronyms. E.g. The USSR;

4. Sound interchange. E.g. Food-feed;

5. Distinctive stress. E.g. Conduct – to conduct;

6. Sound imitation. E.g. To giggle;

7. Back formation. E.g. Beggar – to beg.

Phraseology (ph)
The borderline between free and variable word groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. The
so-called free word groups are only relatively free as collectability of their member words is fundamentally
delimited by their lexical and grammatical valence (валентность, the property of word to demand a certain
semantic complement) which makes at least some of them very close to set phrases. Phraseological units are
comparatively stable and semantically inseparable.

* «Давать» трехвалентный: кто дает кому и что – валентность

The terms which are often used in Ph are:

● Set phrase (which implies stability of the lexical component and grammatical structure of word groups)
● Idiom implies that its essential feature is idiomaticity (lack of motivation)
● Word equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word
groups and their aptness (готовность) to function in speech as single words.

Academician Vinogradov’s approach

Ph units are non-motivated word groups that can’t be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as
ready-made units. The main features/criteria of ph units are: 1) lack of motivation; 2) stability of lexical and
grammatical components; member words of ph units are always reproduced as single unchangeable
collocations, e.g. red flower – можно разделить, red tape (бюрократия) – не можем разделить

Classification of phraseological units

1) Phraseological fusions (сращения) are completely non-motivated word groups, e.g. to kick the bucket,
«на голубом глазу». *Native speakers can’t explain this. The meaning of the components has no
connection with the meaning of the whole group.

2) Phraseological units (единства) are partially non-motivated as their meaning can be understood
through the metaphoric meaning of the whole ph unit, to show one’s teeth – to threaten. They are marked
by a comparatively high degree of stability of lexical components.

3) Phraseological collocations (словосочетания) are motivated but they are made up of words
possessing specific lexical valence which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word groups.
Variability of member words is strictly limited, e.g. to take a liking/to take a fancy – понравиться,
пристраститься

Criticism of the Vinogradov’s approach

1) The concept ‘ready-made units’ is vague as it includes proverbs, sayings, quotations, etc. They are
excluded – узкое понимание фразеологии.
 2) The criterion of idiomaticity depends largely on one’s feeling of the language: some word groups are
treated by some linguists as idiomatic phrases and by others as free words groups.

***паремия – изучение пословиц и поговорок.

There may be several approaches to idiomaticity:

- interlingua – phrases “to take tea” and “to take care” are understood by Russian people as idiomatic word
groups, but as non-idiomatic by French people

- intralingua to phraseology we refer only to those groups which are felt as non-motivated at least
synchronically. E.g. “red tape”

3) The criterion of stability is also criticized as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from other
word groups referred to as phraseology. We observe regular substitution of at least one of the lexical
components. E.g. “to take a decision” or “to make a decision”

Let’s compare with a motivated word group “to shrug one’s shoulders”, the members of which do not allow of
any substitution. It follows that stability and idiomaticity may be regarded as two different aspects of word
groups. Stability is an essential feature of set phrases, both motivated and non-motivated. Idiomaticity is a
distinguished feature of phraseological units which comprise both stable set phrases and variable. The two
features are not mutually exclusive and may be overlapping, but are not independent.

Stability of word groups may be viewed in terms of predictability (probability of occurrence) of member words.
E.g. “to shrug one’s shoulders”

There is a point of view, according to which stability of all word groups may be statistically calculated and the
word groups, where stability exceeds a certain limit, may be classified as set phrases.

Functional Approach (FA)

This approach assumes that phraseological units may be defined as specific word groups functioning as word
equivalents. Hence the essential features of phraseological units are the semantic and grammatical
inseparability, which are regarded as distinguishing features of isolated words. E.g. “heavy weight – тяжёлый
вес”, “heavy father – сложная роль в театре” is a single inseparable unit.

The term “grammatical inseparability” implies that the grammatical meaning (the part-of-speech meaning) of a
phraseological unit is meant as belonging to the word group as a whole, irrespective of the part-of-speech
meaning of the component words. E.g. “a long day” – “in the long run” is an adverb function.

Grammatical inseparability of phraseological units viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity enables us to
regard them as grammatically equivalent to single words.

Non-variability is understood as the stability of the word-group. In variable contexts, which include
polysemantic words, substitution of one of the components is possible within the limits of the lexical valence of
the word under consideration. E.g. “a small town” -> “a large bag”. Variability of the lexical components is the
distinguishing feature of free word groups. In a phraseological unit variable members serve as a clue to the
meaning, if the other components are limited by the context. These phrases are called “traditional
collocations”. E.g. “a small business”, “a small farmer”.

Phraseological units allow of no substitution of the components. E.g. small hours – предутренние часы
(“hours” is context for “small”. “Small” generally doesn’t have such meaning as “предутренний”), small beer –
светлое пиво. A non-variable context is indicative of specialized meaning of one of the member words and is
understood as the meaning of the word only in the given phrase. It follows that specialized meaning and
stability of lexical components are regarded as interdependent features of phraseological units, whose
semantic structure is unique, that is no other word groups can be created on this semantic pattern.

Criticism of FA:

1. Functional criterion is not reliable when singling out phraseological units from idiomatic word groups

2. Functional criterion serves to single out a comparatively small group of phraseological units.

Contextual Approach (CtA)

Three word groups male up variable context, meanwhile phraseological units make up non-variable/fixed
context.

Criteria of phraseological units:

1. Specialized meaning of the component

2. Non-variability of context

Classification of phraseological units

1. Phraseme is a two-member word group, in which one of the members has specialized meaning,
dependent of the second component. E.g. “small hours”
2. Idioms are characterized by the idiomaticity of the whole group and the impossibility of attaching
meaning to the member of the group, taken in isolation. E.g. “red tape”

Criticism of CtA:

1. Non-variability of context does not necessarily imply specialized meaning of the components of the
word group. In some cases, complete stability of lexical components is found in word groups of a
narrow or a specific range of lexical valence. E.g. “to shrug one’s shoulders”
2. In the CtA, traditional collocations are understood as word groups with partially variable members, the
degree of idiomaticity is disregarded. Thez are referred to as collocations, but the degree of idiomaticity
is disregarded. E.g. to clench fists – сжать кулак.

Professor A. V. Kunin Approach (KA)

1. Phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics;

2. Phraseological deals with phraseological subsystem;

3. Classification of phraseological units:

a. Phraseological units that have a fully or partially transferred meaning. E.g. “red tape”;
 b. Phraseomatic units, which are used in their literal meaning. E.g. “to win a victory”;

c. Borderline cases. E.g. “to cast smth in smb’s teeth”.

4. Phraseological and phraseomatic units are not regarded as word equivalents, but some of them are
treated as word correlates;

5. Phraseological units are set-expressions and their stability distinguishes them from free phrases and
compounds;

6. They are made up of words of different degree of wordiness, depending on set-expressions they are
used in. The structural separateness distinguishes them from compounds;

7. Phraseological units are reproduced ready-made and not created in speech;

8. Lexical stability means that their components are irreplaceable (“red tape”) or partially irreplaceable
(“to have a skeleton in one;s closet/cupboard”).

a. Nominal, именные, номинативные: swan song – лебединая песня;

b. Verbal, глагольные: to hold one’s ground;

c. Adjectival, адъективные: in blooming health – кровь с молоком;

d. Adverbial, адвербиальные: up one’s sleeve;

e. Interjectional, междометные: good luck.

f. Библейские фразеологизмы: daily bread, the promised land, to cast a stone at smb, the
root of the evil – money, to bear one’s cross, forbidden fruit – original sin, Judo’s kiss.

9. Part of a quotation from literally sources is used as self-contained unit. E.g. “a green-eyed monster –
jealousy”.

Etymological survey of the English word-stock

The most characteristic feature of English is its mixed character and composite nature of the English
vocabulary.

Words of native origin

There are several approaches to the term “native”:

1. Native words are words of Anglo-Saxon origin brought to the British Isles in the 5th century by Germanic
tribes;

2. These are words which may be presumed to have existed in English in the 7th century;

3. They are words comprising not only the ancient Anglo-Saxon core, but also words coined later on
these bases by means of various processes operative in English.
Words of native origin consist of ancient elements of Indo-European, Germanic and West-Germanic cognates.
Most of Old English word-stock has been preserved but some of them have passed out of existence. The
native element comprises not only ancient Anglo-Saxon core, but also words which appeared later as a result
of word-formation-split of polysemy and other processes.

Native words make up a very important semantic group: auxiliary and modal verbs, prepositions, conjunctions,
pronouns, numerals. They include words denoting parts of body (head, hand, foot, leg), natural phenomena
(wind, rainbow, rain, earthquake), family relations (mother, father, brother, sister), animals (deer, hare,
hedgehog), properties (?) (hard, funny (?), springy упругий), actions (go, swim, put, wear). Many native words
became polysemantic (Fire, n. — 1) flame, 2) instance of destructive burning (e.g. a forest fire); 3) burning
materials in a stove, fire-place (e.g. There is a fire in the next room. A camp fire); 4) shooting of guns (e.g. to
open/case fire); 5) strong feeling, passion, enthusiasm (e.g. a speech lacking fire)

Etymological doublets (этимологические дублеты)

These are two or more words of the same language which were derived from the different roots from the same
basic words. They differ to a certain degree in form, meaning and current usage

e.g. MnE whole & heal ← OE hal; MnE shadow & shade ← OE sceadu /ˈʃɑdu/

The great stability and semantic peculiarities of Anglo-Saxon words account for their great derivational
potential. Most native words make up large clusters of derived and compound words

e.g. wood – woody (лесистый) – woodcraft

(?) hedge (живая изгородь) - hedgehog - hedgedly (осторожно)

Such affixes of native origin as -ness, -ish, -ed, mis-, un- make part of the patterns widely used to build
numerous new words. Some native words are used as components of compounds so often that they have
acquired the status of derivational affixes -dom, -hood, -over (moreover, turnover, takeover), -out (throughout,
standout выделяться, checkout). So we see that native words do play a significant role in MnE.

Borrowings
Causes and ways of borrowings

live nearby, have contact

Celtic borrowings are the most ancient

dun – коричневый; dune – холм, пологий; slogan; whisky.

Latin borrowings

port ← portus; vine ← vinum; street ← strata; marble; spade.

Latin because of Christianity

monk; sermon; vice; virtul.

Latin learning

school; scholar.
Greek B

art; literature; drama; myth; church; Winchester; Lancaster.

Scandinavian B

fisk, fiskr → fish; sk-: sky, skin; th-: they, there.

French B

1066 battle at Hastings with William, who conquered England, they used Norman dialect of French language.

1. Feodal relations (феодальные отношения) – feodal, vassal, noble, gentle, lord, lady, queen.

2. Government – people, nation, power, authority, government.

3. Law words – court, judge.

4. Kingship terms (термины родства) – parent, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece.

5. Military words – general, sergeant, war.

6. luxury, comfort, delight.

7. Everyday life – river, autumn.

8. Cookery – soup, cutlet.

9. Science – parachute.

German B

Names of minerals: zinc; waltz; zigzag.

Other languages:

Spanish – armada, comrade, cigar.

Portuguese – tank, verandah.

Italian – sonata, solo, opera, macaroni, volcano, influenza.

Dutch – easel, yacht.

Russian – shuba, samovar, izba; kolhoz, bolshevic, menshevic, Komsomol; dacha, blini, schi.

Arabian – chess, tiger.

Hibru – jubelium (раз в 50 лет отпускали рабов – юбилей).

Translation loans
Translation loans (кальки) are words and expressions formed from the material already existing in English but
according to patterns from other language by way of literal morpheme-for-morpheme translation (буквальный
поморфный перевод)

e.g. wall newspaper is a word which is taken from Russian (стеная газета).
International words
International words are words of identical origin that occur in several languages as a result of simultaneous or
successive (одновременный или последовательный) borrowings from one ultimate source

e.g. football, time, cinema, club, sweater, etc.

Criteria of borrowings
1. In some cases the pronunciation of words (sound combinations, strange sounds, the position of stress,
its spelling as the correlation between sounds and letters indicate the foreign origin of the word)

e.g. vase, jungle, psychology, waltz. ballet, bouquet.

2. Morphological structure of the word and its grammatical forms

e.g. datum-data, criterion-criteria, violoncello (Italian)

3. The concept of the word (рус. tsar)

Assimilation of borrowings
1. Phonetic assimilation comprises changes in sound form and stress. Alien sounds are fitted into the
English scheme of sounds

e.g. café [ei], ps [s]

2. Grammatical assimilation: borrowings lost their former grammatical categories and paradigms and
acquired new grammatical categories and paradigms by analogy with other English words

e.g. спутник (склоняется в русском) – sputnik (не склоняется в английском).

All borrowings that we composite in structure in their native language appeared in English as indivisible simple
words

e.g. umbrella (Italian); portfolio (итал. портфель).

The loss of morphological seams in borrowings is termed simplification by analogy with a similar process in
native words.

3. Lexical assimilation: when a word is borrowed its semantic structure as a rule undergoes great
changes. Polysemantic words are usually adopted only in one or two of their meanings. Sometimes a
borrowing acquires new meanings

e.g. French ‘to move’ → English ‘to mix’ общаться.

The semantic structure of borrowings may become more general or more specialized.

e.g. terrorist (раньше участник французской революции; сейчас террорист).

The degree of assimilation depends on the type of borrowing: the older the borrowing is the more assimilated it
is and on the extent to which the word is used; the more the word is used in oral speech the more assimilated
it is.
Folk etymology
Sometimes change of meaning is the result of associating borrowed words with familiar words which
somewhat resemble them in sound but which are not at all related.

e.g. свидетель ← ведать; standard ← OF estandare (знамя); Of cotelette (ребрышко) ← MnE cutlet
(котлета); рус. поликлиника ← полуклиника, остеохондроз ← остохондроз, экстрасенс ← электросенс.

Barbarisms
Barbarisms are words from other languages used by other people but not assimilated in any way

e.g. ad labium; merci; adios; fifty-fifty; non-stop; мерчендайзинг.

Influence of borrowings
Borrowings left a definite imprint upon English. The effect of this influence is observed in the volume of its
vocabulary and also it brought about semantic and stylistic changes in words of English and changes in its
synonymic groups. As the result of the differentiation of meaning between synonymic words many native
words narrowed their meaning or sphere of application

e.g. OE stool ← MnE stool (табурет), пуфик.

A number of words were borrowed into the literary national language which are not to be found in the dialects
and a number of words were borrowed into dialects and used throughout the country.

Some borrowings left an imprint on the morphological structure of words in English. A number of new structural
types appeared in the language. Borrowing influenced the clusters of words:

1. They became enlarged;

2. They come to unite not only the words of the same root morpheme but also of different synonymous
root morphemes

e.g. two – second, dual, binary; sea – marine (не обязательно в знач. морской пейзаж); Марина – имя.