Lexicology As A Branch Of Linguistic Science
Lecture I
Литература
1. Маковеева М.М., Шинаков Ю.С. Системы связи с подвижными объектами. М., Радио и связь. 2002.
2. Карташевский В.Г., Семенов С.Н., Фирстова Т.В. Сети подвижной связи. М., Эко-Трендз. 2001.
3. Соколов А.В., Андрианов В.Н. Альтернатива сотовой связи: транкинговые системы. СПб.:БХВ-Петербург. 2002.
4. Андрианов В.Н., Соколов А.В. Средства мобильной связи. Санкт- Петербург –ВНV. 1999.
5. Головкин О.В. Декаметровая радиосвязь. М., Радио и связь. 1990.
6. Громаков Ю.А. Современные технологии подвижной связи. Радио, 1997.-№5-с. 58-61.
7. Громаков Ю.А. Стандарты и системы подвижной радиосвязи. М. Мобильные телеСистемы –Эко-трендз.1997.
8. Гугалов К.Г., Любомудров Д.Ю. Новые возможности транкинговой связи. Вестник связи.-1996.№1.с.27-28.
9. Батраков А. Система низкоорбитальной связи «Иридиум» Радио, 1996.- №12. С, 12-13.
10. Батраков А. Спутниковые системы персональной связи. Радио, 1996-№11-с.10-11.
11. Калашников А. Спутниковая система персональной связи «Глобалстар» Радио, 1997.-№3-с.67.
12. Дементьева Т.Н., Куличкова Л.И., Андронов Е.К. Основы систем и сетей связи. –М.: Радио и связь. 1988.
13. Мухин А.М., Чайников Л.С. Энциклопедия мобильной связи. Том 1. Санкт- Петербург. Наука и техника. 2001.
14. Букин М.С. Теория и практика мобильной связи. М.: Альянс-пресс. 2003.
15. Степурин А.В. Протокол GPRS. Краткие инструкции для новичков. М.:ООО «Аквариум - Принт». 2005.
16. Йоган Шиллер. Мобильные коммуникации. М.:Издательский дом «Вильямс». 2002.
17. Соловьев А.А. Пейджинговая связь. М., Эко-Трендз. 2000.
18. Ратынский М.В. Основы сотовой связи. М.,Радио и связь. 1988.
19. Дингес С.И. Мобильная связь: технология DECT. М.,Солон – Пресс.2003.
20. Адаменко М.В. Секреты сотовых телефонов. М.: ДМК Пресс, 2002. СОЛОН-Пресс.2002.
21. Невдяев Л.М. Мобильная связь 3-го поколения. М.: «Горячая линия – Телеком». 2000.
22. Черников Ф. Тенденции развития беспроводной технологии CDMA. CHIP, 2003-№5-с.84-89.
23. Басманова В. Эволюции UMTS посвящается… Коммуникации и сети ТЕЛЕКОМ, 2005-№9-с.30-34.
24. На пути к сотовым сетям третьего поколения. Коммуникации и сети ТЕЛЕКОМ, 2005-№6-с.52-58.
Lexicology (Gr. lexis — “word”, logos — “learning”) — the part of linguistics dealing with the vocabulary of a language in the totality (совокупности)& complexity of cooperation (interaction) of its constituting elements, ~ c. b. called lexical units.
Lexical units: a) words (ready for usage) — with their help a man names objects & properties of the surrounding him reality, phenomena of his mental activity & etc.;
b) word-equivalents, denoting set-expressions, function as names of a complex type (syntactically treated like single words);
c) morphemes — the smallest meaningful elements (units) of a linguistic system, with their help a speaker can form names necessary in the course of communication.
a), b), c) — all these units — are a building material for communicators — form the system of lexical units of a language / its vocabulary.
The theoretical & practical value of lexicology:
1) gives a systematic description of the present make-up of the vocabulary. It reveals the most significant characteristics of lexical units, regularities (закономерности) of its growth (становления), functioning & development.
~ morphemic structure, regularities of their formation, their derivational potential;
~ the analysis of valency of lexical units, factors, determining the possibilities / nonposs-s of this / that usage of a word, laws of formation of set-expressions, general & specific features of phraseological units in comparison with other types of linguistic units;
~ the analysis of semantic characteristics of lex. un., studying the nature & components of its meaning, connection of meaning with sound-form & other meanings.
But not only the description of a staticaspect of the voc-ry, though it’s very important, especially in Methodology of Teaching a Language, Lexicography, Engineering Linguistics
2) It’s necessary to reveal a dynamic side of the lexical system:
~ the study of the origin of lex. un., their etymological charecteristics, processes of assimilation of borrowed words;
~ the analysis of peculiarities of the voc-ry depending on territorial, social & another differentiation of a lingual collective;
Thus, the aim of Lex-y — a multiaspect& complex description of the properties of the voc-ry of a lang-e.
3) in training of a would-be teacher of lang-es, as it helps to stimulate a systematic approach to the facts of voc-ry.
4) in building up the learner’s voc-ry by an effective selection, grouping & analysis of new words. A good knowledge of the system of word-formation helps the student to guess & retain in his memory the meaning of new words on the basis of their motivation & by comparing & contrasting them with the previously learned elements & patterns.
5) Knowledge & understanding of functional styles & stylistic synonyms is indispensable when literary texts are used as a basis for acquiring oral skills, for analytical reading & translation.
6) Helps students to master the literary standards of word-usage. The correct use of words is an important counterpart of expressive & effective speech.
7) An exact knowledge of the voc-ry system — necessary in connection with technical teaching means. Before a machine can “teach”, a teacher & a linguist must provide the program.
8) L-y imparts the necessary skills off using different kinds of dictionaries & reference-books & prepares for future independent work on increasing & improving one’s voc-ry.
The connection of Lex-y with other branches of linguistics:
~ with phonetics—on the acoustic level words consist of phonemes, ~ have no meaning of their own. Nevertheless, as their function—building up morphemes, they serve to distinguish between meanings:
[bæk] & [bæg], [lot] & [lok]
import—to import, export—to export, conduct—to conduct
blackbird ~ black bird
~ with grammar—is conditioned by the manifold &inseverable ties between the objects of their study. Isolated words as presented in a dictionary bear a definite relation to the grammatical system of the lang-e because they belong to some prt of speech & conform to some lexico-grammatic. characteristics of the word-class to ~ they belong. Alongside with their lex.meaning they possess some grammat. mean.—these 2 kinds of meaning are often interdependent.
E.g., not every intransitive verb can fulfill the function of a link verb with a predicative, but often the verbs of motion: come true, turn red, fall flat, run mad, go mad, go sick, go hot / cold, turn sick & other similar combinations, ~ render the meaning of “become smth.”
The reverse case: it may happen that a form that originally expressed grammat. mean. Becomes a basis for a new grammatically conditioned lex.mean.:
сolour—цвет, colours—знамя
custom—обычай, customs—таможенныепошлины
the same with: arms, looks, works, pictures—lexicalization of a grammat. form.
~ with Stylistics, ~ from a different angle studies many problems treated in Lex-y: the problems of meaning, synonymy, differentiation of voc-ry according to the sphere of communication. Without awareness of stylistic properties of lex.units we can’t enjoy the effect of hidden connotations & imagery, we can’t grasp the whole essence of the message the author has to convey.
The System Of Lexical Units
The whole variation of relationships of lex.units m. b. classified into paradigmatic&syntagmatic. Paradigmatic linguistic relationships develop between homogeneous lex. un., possessing a definite general sign. They m. b. subdivided into: 1) the interdependence of elements within words; 2) the interdependence of words within the voc-ry; 3) the influence of other aspects of the same language.
(1) is revealed when the components of the lex. system are viewed as complex morphological & semantic structures.
(2) is discussed while studying homonyms, synonyms, antonyms, stylistically marked &styl-ly neutral w-s, morphological groupings (root-words, derivatives, compounds, compound derivatives), lexico-grammatical groups (parts of speech), thematic & ideographic groups (terms of kinship, names for parts of the human body, colour terms, military terms). All these groupings are based on some common feature with respect to which w-s m.b. regarded as equivalent & simultaneously their opposition according to to some feature—these facts provide the choice of a necessary unit in the process of speech, e.g.: dogged : doggish (contrast of derivational morphemes);
the meaning of “blue” depends on the other names of colours to ~ it c.b. contrasted.
(3) means the phonetical, morphological & syntactical systems of the E. Language, as they condition the sound-form, morph-l str., motivation & meaning of words—the influence is manifold.
E.g.: the monosyllabic phonological type of the E. w-d enhances homonymy:
“miss”v— “not hit”, “not catch” & “miss”n— a title for a girl / unmarried woman
The influence of morphology is manifest in the development of conversion: rain—to rain, monkey—to monkey.
Syntagmatic relationships—based on the linear character of speech,i.e. on the influence of context—relationships in linear combinations of lex. un.,rel-ps of elements, lining up in a definitesuccession one after another in the course of speech. Some syntagmatic rel-ps obtain a fixed character in the language: rel-ps between components of w-s, rel-ps in set-expressions: to take one’s chance, a bee in one’s bonnet (причуда, навязчиваяидея), a dull-dog (скучный, нудныйчеловек).
The whole totality of paradigmatic & syntagmatic rel-ps in their numerous & manifold manifestations determines the correlation of lex. un. & thus, a systematic character of the voc-ry of the lang-ge.
There are 2 ways in which lang-gem.b. viewed: diachronical (historical)&synchronical (descriptive). Lang-ge—the reality of thought, & thought develops together with the development of society, therefore lang-ge& its voc-rym.b. studied in the light of social history. Every new phenomenon in human society, human activity in general, finds a reflection in voc-ry. A w-d through its meaning rendering some notion, is a generalized reflection of reality. Changes in social, political, everyday life, production, science, manners or culture are reflected in w-s. These extralinguistic forces influencing the development of w-s are considered in historical lex-y.
Synchronic approach deals with the voc-ry of a given lang-ge at a given stage of its development. It studies the function of w-s & their specific structure as a characteristic inherent in the system.
These 2 aspects—interdependent &can not be understood without one another. Studying the lex-y of present-day English we can’t but pay attention to the historical aspect of the problem—the ways & tendencies of voc-ry development—otherwise the picture would be incomplete. The lex.syst. of every epoch contains productive elements typical of this particular period, others are obsolete & dropping out of usage, some new phenomena come into being.
Some General Problems Of the Theory Of the Word
The definition of the w-d—1 of the most difficult problems in linguistics, because a w-d—a many-sided, many-aspected unit. It has phonological, morphological, semantic & syntactic properties, therefore the attempts to give the definition on the account of any of these criteria result in one-sidedness, non-completeness, non-adequacy of the definition
Ch. Hockett : a w-d—“any segment of a sentence, limited by the following points in which pause is possible.”
П.С.Кузнецов : :sound-sequence, ~ c.b. limited by pauses of any length”
In these definitions a phonetic criterion is taken into account, others—aren’t.
Many scientists consider : No purely semantic definition can exist without paying attention to other more significant criteria. E.g., the definition based on the fact : a w-d expresses a concept / notion—inadequate, as not all w-s are connected with a concept (interjections).
Stephen Ullman — a purely semantic treatment: w-s—meaningful units, ~ compose meaningful segments.
Alan Gardiner— the semantic-phonological approach : “A w-d is an articulate sound-symbol in its aspect of denoting smth. ~ is spoken about.”
А.И. Смирницкий—a morphological appr.—the integrity of a w-d—the morphological paradigm of the w-d becomes its leading sign.
Henry Sweet, Leonard Bloomfield—a syntactic treatment—“a minimum free form”.
E.Sapir—the syntactic & semantic aspects—“one of the smallest completely satisfying bits of isolated “meaning”, into ~ the sentence resolves itself.” Sapir also points out a semantic aspects—“one of the smallest completely satisfying bits of isolated “meaning”, into ~ the sentence resolves itself.” Sapir also points out a very important characteristic of the w-d—its indivisibility.
A. Meillet (french) combines the semantic, phonol-l & gram-l criteria — “A w-d is defined by association of a given meaning with a given group of sounds susceptible of a given grammatical employment.
But not all w-s in the lang-e have these / those characteristics to an equal degree: formal w-s (articles, conjunctions, prepositions), intermediate, frontier cases: auxiliary verbs in MdE, approaching in their functioning functional affixes (morphemes), but preserving the correlation with notional verbs: I have read, they didn’t go, more beautiful, mostsincerly; Rus: онбудетчитать.
Conclusion: a) a great variety of characteristics of w-s of different types in one lang-e;
b) in different lang-esphon-l, morph-l, synt-l & other characteristics of the word don’t coincide, e.g: Slavonic lang-s : due to flections the lexico-grammatical treatment of the w-d—1 of the principal characteristics of the word ≠ MdE : poor, undeveloped morphplogy → lex.-grammat. treatment—of minor importance, therefore it will hardly be included into the definition of the w-d.
(a) + (b) prevent from giving the single universal definition of the w-d.The w-d is 1 of the fundamental units of the lang-e—a dialectical unity of form & content. The acoustic aspect the w-d serves to name the objects of reality, not to reflect them. W-d directly corresponds to the object of thought (referent) — ~ is a generalized reverberation of a certain “piece” of objective reality — & by immediately referring to it names the thing meant.