References in periodicals archive

In the above syntagm, for example, the word 'young' stands in a paradigmatic relationship with the words 'old', 'tall', etc.

The articulation of more types of paradigmatic relationships in thesauri and subject heading lists and the presence of alternative classification numbers in different contexts, or even disciplines, offer potential for the web and the hierarchy to work together.

Ferdinand de Saussure, the seminal semiotician, suggested that paradigmatic relationships belong to the relatively stable system of language.

A modern dictionary, therefore, will concern itself not only with meanings, but with syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships.

As noted earlier, paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds.

First they are limited in what they can express insofar as they manage--and frequently they don't--to limit their hierarchy structures to paradigmatic relationships.

 

 

Multiple Sentences

Multiple sentences contain another sentences or sentences-like construction. There exist two types of multiple sentences: compound sentences and complex sentences.

Compound sentences contain two or more clauses connected by coordination. The function of coordination is fulfilled by conjunctions (or coordinators). The most frequently used are: and, but, or.

e. g. Atomistic activities are more easily examined and graded, and the pressure on many students and teachers of language to substitute the goal of examination success for that communicative competence is perhaps another reason for their elevation.

To say that discourse have beginnings, middles and ends may seem a rather otiose statement, but it is the complexity and variety of such phe­nomena that interests us here.

You may bring these books now, or you may keep them for a week.

It is clear from the examples, adduced above, that compound sen­tences consist of two independent clauses, each of them representing a separate sentence.

Very often one may come across sentences, which are coordinated, but do not have any coordinator between them, coordination being sig­naled only by punctuation.

e.g. These texts are very frequent in British English newspapers and

radio and TV news bulletins; they are frequently used in class by teachers because of their shortness and (usually) human interest.

We often repeat the words of others; we notice repetitions in everything from political speeches to TV and radio news broadcasts: we accept repeti­tion as basic components of songs and poetry.

A complex sentence contains one or more subordinate clauses. Usually the subordinate clauses are embedded by means of a subordinator (or subor­dinating conjunction), especially in the case of finite clauses.

E. g.: Linguists in Britain generally pride themselves on being aware of schools of thought in linguistics throughout the world, no matter which theoretical position the individual linguist may prefer.

The sisters found a little place where a tiny stream flowed into the lake, with reeds and flowery march of pink willow herb, and a gravelly bank to the side.

There also exist non-finite and verbless clauses (reduced clauses). E. g.: Hearing voices coming from the sitting-room, Halliday talking to Li-bidem'now, he went to the door and glanced in.

Used in a general way, the terms "failure» and "success” are imprecise and emotive.

Non-finite clauses usually do not contain a subject. Verbless clauses lack a verb. E. g. Though very tired, they decided to continue their work.

As one could already see from the examples adduced above a com­pound sentence may contain a subordinate clause within one of the main clauses. E. g.: The little dark boats had moved nearer, people were crowding curiously along the Redge by the high-road, to see what was to be seen.

A complex sentences may have a hierarchy of subordinate clauses. E. g.: It is commonly accepted that the English language is vastly more used nowadays than it was in the past, and that the expansion of its use continue apace.

The example adduced above also shows the coordination of the sub­ordinate clauses within a complex sentence

The problem of the words in

1. Neologisms are «words that have appeared in a language in connection with new phenomena, new concepts,… but which have not yet entered into the active vocabularies of a significant portion of the native speakers of the language». (Woodhouse dictionary, 1972, p. 225)}
2. «A neologism is the term used to describe a word that has been made-up or invented by a speaker, which appears in a transcript of spontaneous speech dialogue. It can also be described as a word which does not appear in the dictionary of the primary spoken language, but which is also not a foreign word.» (Internet http://en.wiktionary.org) neologism is not yet registered in dictionaries and in most cases it is a colloquial for the time being.} }
3. from hating someone or something) kippers – from «kids in parents' pockets eroding retirement savings»} } } }

At the present moment English is developing very swiftly and there is so called «neology blowup». R. Berchfield who worked at compiling a four-volume supplement to NED says that averagely 800 neologisms appear every year in Modern English. It has also become a language-giver recently, especially with the development of computerization.
New words, as a rule, appear in speech of an individual person who wants to express his idea in some original way. This person is called «originater». New lexical units are primarily used by university teachers, newspaper reporters, by those who are connected with mass media.
Neologisms can develop in three main ways: a lexical unit existing in the language can change its meaning to denote a new object or phenomenon. In such cases we have semantic neologisms, e.g. the word «umbrella» developed the meanings: «авиационное прикрытие»,»политическое прикрытие». A new lexical unit can develop in the language to denote an object or phenomenon which already has some lexical unit to denote it. In such cases we have transnomination, e.g. the word «slum» was first substituted by the word «ghetto» then by the word-group «inner town». A new lexical unit can be introduced to denote a new object or phenomenon. In this case we have «a proper neologism», many of them are cases of new terminology.
Here we can point out several semantic groups when we analize the group of neologisms connected with computerization, and here we can mention words used:
a) to denote different types of computers, e.g. PC, super-computer, multi-user, neurocomputer / analogue of a human brain/;
b) to denote parts of computers, e.g. hardware, software, monitor, screen, data, vapourware / experimental samples of computers for exhibition, not for production/;
c) to denote computer languages, e.g. BASIC, Algol FORTRAN etc;
d) to denote notions connected with work on computers, e.g. computerman, computerization, computerize, to troubleshoot, to blitz out / to ruin data in a computer’s memory/.
There are also different types of activities performed with the help of computers, many of them are formed with the help of the morpheme «tele», e.g. to telework, to telecommute / to work at home having a computer which is connected with the enterprise for which one works/. There are also such words as telebanking, telemarketing, teleshopping / when you can perform different operations with the help of your computer without leaving your home, all operations are registered by the computer at your bank/, videobank /computerized telephone which registers all information which is received in your absence/.
In the sphere of lingusitics we have such neologisms as: machine translation, interlingual / an artificial language for machine translation into several languages / and many others.
In the sphere of biometrics we have computerized machines which can recognize characteristic features of people seeking entrance: finger-print scanner / finger prints/, biometric eye-scanner / blood-vessel arrangements in eyes/, voice verification /voice patterns/. These are types of biometric locks. Here we can also mention computerized cards with the help of which we can open the door without a key.
In the sphere of medicine computors are also used and we have the following neologisms: telemonitory unit / a telemonitory system for treating patience at a distance/.
With the development of social activities neologisms appeared as well, e.g. youthquake - волнения среди молодежи, pussy-footer - политик, идущий на компромисы, Euromarket, Eurodollar, Europarliament, Europol etc.
In the modern English society there is a tendency to social stratification, as a result there are neologisms in this sphere as well, e.g. belonger - представитель среднего класса, приверженец консервативных взглядов. To this group we can also refer abbreviations of the type yuppie /young urban professional people/, such as: muppie, gruppie, rumpie, bluppie etc. People belonging to the lowest layer of the society are called survivers, a little bit more prosperous are called sustainers, and those who try to prosper in life and imitate those, they want to belong to, are called emulaters. Those who have prospered but are not belongers are called achievers. All these layers of socety are called VAL /Value and Lifestyles/.
The rich belong also to jet set that is those who can afford to travel by jet planes all over the world enjoying their life. Sometimes they are called «jet plane travellers».
During Margaret Thatcher’s rule the abbreviation PLU appeared which means «People like us» by which snobbistic circles of society call themselves. Nowadays /since 1989/ PLU was substituted by «one of us».
There are a lot of immigrants now in UK, in connection with which neologisms partial and non-partial were formed /имеющие право жить в стране и его антоним/.
The word-group «welfare mother» was formed to denote a non-working single mother living on benefit.
In connection with criminalization of towns in UK volantary groups of assisting the police were formed where dwellers of the neighbourhood are joined. These groups are called «neighbourhood watch», «home watch». Criminals wear «stocking masks» not to be recognized.
The higher society has neologisms in their speech, such as: dial-a-meal, dial-a-taxi.
In the language of teen-agers there are such words as: Drugs! /OK/, sweat /бег на длинные дистанции/, task /home composition /, brunch etc.
With the development of professional jargons a lot of words ending in «speak» appeared in English, e.g. artspeak, sportspeak, medspeak, education-speak, video-speak, cable-speak etc.
There are different semantic groups of neologisms belonging to everyday life:
a) food e.g. «starter»/ instead of «hors d’oevres»/, macrobiotics / raw vegetables, crude rice/, longlife milk, clingfilm, microwave stove, consumer electronics, fridge-freezer, hamburgers /beef-, cheese-, fish-, veg- /.
b) clothing, e.g. catsuit /one-piece clinging suit/, slimster, string / miniscule bikini/, hipster / trousers or skirt with the belt on hips/, completenik / a long sweater for trousers/, sweatnik /a long jacket/, pants-skirt, bloomers / lady’s sports trousers/.
c) footwear e.g. winklepickers /shoes with long pointed toes/, thongs /open sandals/, backsters /beech sandals with thick soles/.
d) bags, e.g. bumbag /a small bag worn on the waist/, sling bag /a bag with a long belt/, maitre / a small bag for cosmetics/.
There are also such words as: dangledolly / a dolly-talisman dangling in the car before the windscreen/, boot-sale /selling from the boot of the car/, touch-tone /a telephone with press-button/.
Neologisms can be also classified according to the ways they are formed. They are subdivided into: phonological neologisms, borrowings, semantic neologisms and syntactical neologisms. Syntactical neologisms are divided into morphological /word-building/ and phraseological /forming word-groups/.
Phonological neologisms are formed by combining unique combinations of sounds, they are called artificial, e.g. rah-rah /a short skirt which is worn by girls during parades/, «yeck» /»yuck» which are interjections to express repulsion produced the adjective yucky/ yecky. These are strong neologisms.
Strong neologisms include also phonetic borrowings, such as «perestroika» /Russian/, «solidarnosc» /Polish/, Berufsverbot / German /, dolce vita /Italian/ etc.
Morphological and syntactical neologisms are usually built on patterns existing in the language, therefore they do not belong to the group of strong neologisms.
Among morphological neologisms there are a lot of compound words of different types, such as «free-fall»-»резкое падение курса акций» appeared in 1987 with the stock market crash in October 1987 /on the analogy with free-fall of parachutists, which is the period between jumping and opening the chute/. Here also belong: call-and-recall - вызов на диспансеризацию, bioastronomy -search for life on other planets, rat-out - betrayal in danger, zero-zero (double zero) - ban of longer and shorter range weapon, x-rated /about films terribly vulgar and cruel/, Ameringlish /American English/, tycoonography - a biography of a business tycoon.
There are also abbreviations of different types, such as resto, teen /teenager/, dinky /dual income no kids yet/, ARC /AIDS-related condition, infection with AIDS/, HIV / human immuno-deficiency virus/.
Quite a number of neologisms appear on the analogy with lexical units existing in the language, e.g. snowmobile /automobile/, danceaholic /alcoholic/, airtel /hotel/, cheeseburger /hamburger/, autocade / cavalcade/.
There are many neologisms formed by means of affixation, such as: decompress, to disimprove, overhoused, educationalist, slimster, folknik etc. Phraseological neologisms can be subdivided into phraseological units with transferred meanings, e.g. to buy into/ to become involved/, fudge and dudge /avoidance of definite decisions/, and set non-idiomatic expressions, e.g. electronic virus, Rubic’s cube, retail park, acid rain, boot trade etc.

 

Syntax and syntactic units

General characteristics of syntax.

The grammatical structure of language comprises two major parts – morphology and syntax. The two areas are obviously interdependent and together they constitute the study of grammar.

Morphology deals with paradigmatic and syntagmatic properties of morphological units – morphemes and words. It is concerned with the internal structure of words and their relationship to other words and word forms within the paradigm. It studies morphological categories and their realization.

Syntax, on the other hand, deals with the way words are combined. It is concerned with the external functions of words and their relationship to other words within the linearly ordered units – word-groups, sentences and texts. Syntax studies the way in which the units and their meanings are combined. It also deals with peculiarities of syntactic units, their behavior in different contexts.

Syntactic units may be analyzed from different points of view, and accordingly, different syntactic theories exist.

2. Kinds of syntactic theories.

Transformational-Generative Grammar. The Transformational grammar was first suggested by American scholar Zelling Harris as a method of analyzing sentences and was later elaborated by another American scholar Noam Chomsky as a synthetic method of ‘generating’ (constructing) sentences. The main point of the Transformational-Generative Grammar is that the endless variety of sentences in a language can be reduced to a finite number of kernels by means of transformations. These kernels serve the basis for generating sentences by means of syntactic processes. Different language analysts recognize the existence of different number of kernels (from 3 to 39). The following 6 kernels are commonly associated with the English language:

(1) NV – John sings.

(2) NVAdj. – John is happy.

(3) NVN – John is a man.

(4) NVN – John hit the man.

(5) NVNN – John gave the man a book.

(6) NVPrep.N – The book is on the table.

It should be noted that (3) differs from (4) because the former admits no passive transformation.

Transformational method proves useful for analysing sentences from the point of their deep structure:

Flying planes can be dangerous.

This sentence is ambiguous, two senses can be distinguished: a) the action of flying planes can be dangerous, b) the planes that fly can be dangerous. Therefore it can be reduced to the following kernels:

a) Planes can be dangerous b) Planes can be dangerous

X (people) fly planes X Planes fly

Constructional Syntax. Constructional analysis of syntactic units was initiated by Prof. G.Pocheptsov in his book published in Kyiv in 1971. This analysis deals with the constructional significance/insignificance of a part of the sentence for the whole syntactic unit. The theory is based on the obligatory or optional environment of syntactic elements. For example, the element him in the sentence I saw him there yesterday is constructionally significant because it is impossible to omit it. At the same time the elements there and yesterday are constructionally insignificant – they can be omitted without destroying the whole structure.

Communicative Syntax. It is primarily concerned with the analysis of utterances from the point of their communicative value and informative structure. It deals with the actual division of the utterance – the theme and rheme analysis. Both the theme and the rheme constitute the informative structure of utterances. The theme is something that is known already while the rheme represents some new information. Depending on the contextual informative value any sentence element can act as the theme or the rheme:

Who is at home? - John is at home. Where is John? – John is at home.

Pragmatic approach to the study of syntactic units can briefly be described as the study of the way language is used in particular contexts to achieve particular goals. Speech Act Theory was first introduced by John Austin. The notion of a speech act presupposes that an utterance can be said with different intentions or purposes and therefore can influence the speaker and situation in different ways:

 

Accordingly, we can distinguish different speech acts.

Of special interest here is the problem of indirect speech acts: Are you leaving already? In our everyday activities we use indirect speech acts rather willingly because it is the best way to influence people, to get what we want and to be polite at the same time.

Textlinguistics studies the text as a syntactic unit, its main features and peculiarities, different ways of its analysis.

Discourse analysis focuses on the study of language use with reference to the social and psychological factors that influence communication.

3. Basic syntactic notions.

The syntactic language level can be described with the help of special linguistic terms and notions: syntactic unit, syntactic form, syntactic meaning, syntactic function, syntactic position, and syntactic relations.

Syntactic unit is always a combination that has at least two constituents. The basic syntactic units are a word-group, a clause, a sentence, and a text. Their main features are:

a) they are hierarchical units – the units of a lower level serve the building material for the units of a higher level;

b) as all language units the syntactic units are of two-fold nature:

 

c) they are of communicative and non-communicative nature – word-groups and clauses are of non-communicative nature while sentences and texts are of communicative nature.

Syntactic meaning is the way in which separate word meanings are combined to produce meaningful word-groups and sentences.

Green ideas sleep furiously. This sentence is quite correct grammatically. However it makes no sense as it lacks syntactic meaning.

Syntactic form may be described as the distributional formula of the unit (pattern). John hits the ball – N1 + V + N2.

Syntactic function is the function of a unit on the basis of which it is included to a larger unit: in the word-group a smart student the word ‘smart’ is in subordinate attributive relations to the head element. In traditional terms it is used to denote syntactic function of a unit within the sentence (subject, predicate, etc.).

Syntactic position is the position of an element. The order of constituents in syntactic units is of principal importance in analytical languages. The syntactic position of an element may determine its relationship with the other elements of the same unit: his broad back, a back district, to go back, to back sm.

Syntactic relations are syntagmatic relations observed between syntactic units. They can be of three types – coordination, subordination and predication.

1. Syntactic relations.

The syntactic units can go into three types of syntactic relations.

1 Coordination (SR1) – syntagmatic relations of independence. SR1 can be observed on the phrase, sentence and text levels. Coordination may be symmetric and asymmetric. Symmetric coordination is characterized by complete interchangeability of its elements – pens and pencils. Asymmetric coordination occurs when the position of elements is fixed: ladies and gentlemen. Forms of connection within SR1 may be copulative (you and me), disjunctive (you or me), adversative (strict but just) and causative-consecutive (sentence and text level only).

2 Subordination (SR2) – syntagmatic relations of dependence. SR2 are established between the constituents of different linguistic rank. They are observed on the phrase and sentence level. Subordination may be of three different kinds – adverbial (to speak slowly), objective (to see a house) and attributive (a beautiful flower). Forms of subordination may also be different – agreement (this book – these books), government (help us), adjournment (the use of modifying particles just, only, even, etc.) and enclosure (the use of modal words and their equivalents really, after all, etc.).

3 Predication (SR3) – syntagmatic relations of interdependence. Predication may be of two kinds – primary (sentence level) and secondary (phrase level). Primary predication is observed between the subject and the predicate of the sentence while secondary predication is observed between non-finite forms of the verb and nominal elements within the sentence. Secondary predication serves the basis for gerundial, infinitive and participial word-groups (predicative complexes).