COGNITIVE-PRAGMATIC STUDY OF WORD FORMATION PROCESS
1
PLAN:
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..….3
CHAPTER I. DIFFERENT WAYS OF WORD FORMATION IN ENGLISH
1.1. Compounding as a mean of word formation in the English language….7
1.2. Conversion as a mean of word formation in the English language…....12
1.3. Other types of word formation in the English language………………. 17
1.4 Affixation as an effective way of word formation………………………25
1.5 Suffixation as a way of word formation……………………....................36
Conclusion of chapter I………………………………………………………….42
CHAPTER II. AFFIXATION IN THE SYSTEM OF WORD FORMATION
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE……………………………………………...44
2.1. Cognitive-pragmatic paradigm in modern linguistics………………….44
2.2. Categorization is the most important cognitive operation……………..45
2.3 Conceptualization of linguistic phenomena. Concept as a base :
cognitive entity………………………………48
2.4. Cognitive metaphor as one of the forms of conceptualization
; reality……………………………….54
2.5. Pragmatics of linguistic phenomena……………………………………59
Conclusion of chapter II……………………………………………………….61
CHAPTER III. COGNITIVE AND PRAGMATIC ANALAYSIS OF WORD
FORMATIONS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
3.1.
A brief overview of word formation from structuralism to
cognitivism............................................................................63
3.2.
The pragmatic analysis of nominative and communicative aspect of
word formation......................................................................70
3.3
Cognitive analysis of formation of words and notions...........................78
Conclusion of chapter III......................................................................................84
COCLUSION.........................................................................................................87
LIST OF USED LITERATURE..........................................................................92
2
3
INTRODUCTION
The actuality and significance of the master's dissertation. This work is
devoted to the problem of studying cognitive pragmatic ways of word formation at
the present stage. With the current rapid speed of development of science and
technology, no dictionary is able to keep up with the emergence of new words and
terms in various fields of knowledge, which leads to the emergence of the problem
of translation and understanding of words.
Word formation is traditionally understood as the formation of words from
other words with the help of certain operations that imply meaningful and formal
changes in the characteristics of the word. The essence of word-formation
processes is the creation of new names, new secondary designation units. The very
appearance of a new word is dictated by pragmatic needs.
A person who creates a new word strives for individualization and originality.
At the same time, the lexical system that has developed in the language imposes
certain restrictions on the creative activity of people who create new words. This
paper describes cognitive and pragmatic aspects of the ways of word formation in
modern English, reveals the content of the concepts of "word formation" and
"neologism", systematizes the ways of word formation in the English language at
the present stage of its development.
The object of this study is pragmatic features of the lexical composition of
the modern English language.
The subject of the research is cognitive analysis of productive and
unproductive ways of word formation in English.
The purpose of this work: to identify and systematize the ways of word
formation in the English language.
To achieve the goal, the following tasks of the research were set:
1. Give a critical analysis of the literature on the research topic;
2. Select material for research from the dictionary of words;
4
3. Analyze the ways of word formation in English and identify the most
common among them.
To study this topic, thematic literature was considered, which helped to study
the methods of word formation in general, others were needed to identify the
popularity of word formation methods.
The hypothesis is formulated as follows: the qualitative indicators of the
foreign language communicative competence of the students of the Institutes of
Foreign Languages will reach a higher level in their professional activities, if it is
rational to ensure the pragmatization of foreign language speech of students by
means of language material that is adequate to the modern image of the English
language (language neoplasms, transformations, abbreviations, borrowings). from
other languages, colloquial phraseological units).
The methodological basis of this study was the work of V.V. Eliseeva, N.N.
Amosova, E.S. Kubryakova, V.I. Zabotkina. Questions that arose during the course
of this work are as follows:
• The problem of attributing a neologism to a neologism, how long a word
should be used in the language in order to be considered a neologism and get into
the dictionary;
• Determining the connection between occasionalism, the author's use of a
lexical unit and neologism;
• The need to create special dictionary entries or labels that allow you to mark
neologisms, because. the existing system is extremely inconvenient and does not
take into account the social differentiation of the language, hence:
• Fuzziness in the stylistic characteristics of words, and hence in the question
of attributing slang units, professionalisms, terms and other layers of vocabulary to
words.
In this work, the following research methods were used:
1) analysis of scientific sources on this issue;
2) taxonomic research method;
5
3) hypothetical-deductive method;
4) statistical method.
The theoretical significance of this work is to identify and systematize the
ways of word formation in the English language.
To achieve the goal, the practical significance of the research were set:
1. Completed a critical analysis of the literature on the research topic;
2. Analyzed selected material for research from the vocabulary;
3. Classified and finished ways of word formation in English and identified
the most common among them on the point of pragmatic aspect.
To study this topic, thematic literature was considered, which helped to study
the methods of word formation in general, others were needed to identify the
popularity of word formation methods.
In this work, the following research methods were used:
1) analysis of scientific sources on this issue;
2) taxonomic research method;
3) hypothetical-deductive method;
4) statistical method.
The methodological basis of this study was the work of V.V. Eliseeva, N.N.
Amosova, E.S. Kubryakova, V.I. Zabotkina. Questions that arose during the course
of this work are as follows:
• The problem of attributing a neologism to a neologism, how long a word
should be used in the language in order to be considered a neologism and get into
the dictionary;
• Determining the connection between occasionalism, the author's use of a
lexical unit and neologism;
• The need to create special dictionary entries or labels that allow you to mark
neologisms, because. the existing system is extremely inconvenient and does not
take into account the social differentiation of the language, hence:
6
• Fuzziness in the stylistic characteristics of words, and hence in the question
of attributing slang units, professionalisms, terms and other layers of vocabulary to
words.
This work consists of an introduction, three chapters (each chapter contains
two paragraphs), a conclusion and a list of references.
7
CHAPTER I. DIFFERENT WAYS OF WORD FORMATION IN
ENGLISH
1.1. Compounding as a mean of word formation in the English language.
Word formation is one of the oldest, most common, and most pervasive
processes in English, and it is still active today—more than one-third of all
neoplasms in contemporary English are compound terms. The majority of
compound words are two-component units. Compounding involves the
juxtaposition of two bases, typically homonymous word forms. For instance,
Citibank (USA) offers customers the hedging instrument citiplus, which allows for
the "transfer of losses to an earlier period". Endocentric nouns, like "glue-sniffing"
(the act of inhaling glue to experience its narcotic effects) and "think-tank
collective brain," are the most prevalent among the new complex units. It can be
challenging for translators to distinguish between complex neologism words and
phrases because the norms of the modern English language allow the combination
of words that share the same lexical and grammatical characteristics as the stems
that are combined to compose the stem. Compare closing bank, which is defined as
"a bank that closes a deal in which multiple banks participated," with closing bank,
which is defined as "closing bank," etc. Compound words and phrases can
currently be distinguished using a variety of criteria. The spelling criterion, which
essentially means to treat any complex written together or with a hyphen as a
compound word and a complex whose components are written separately as
phrases, demands special attention while translating terms in English texts:
“dividend-right certificate - "a certificate giving the right to receive a dividend",
dear-money policy - "limitation of credit by raising interest rates",
fill-or-kill order - "the client's order to the broker, which must be immediately
executed or canceled"
When two words that finish and begin with the same vowel or consonant are
merged, one of them is left out: net + etiquette = netiquette "unwritten generally
accepted rules for communicating or posting information on the Internet." The use
8
of the even more emotive word "cyberrape" to describe the conduct of Jake Baker,
a 20-year-old American student, by some sections of the American press, however,
is not a rule and only serves to strengthen the argument. (1998, The Independent).
There are more and more sophisticated derivative units. The major useful suffix is
-er: a baby-boomer is a person born during the post-World War II population
surge; a page-turner is a book that holds your attention from beginning to end; an
all-nighter is something that lasts all night, like lessons during a session. Particleand adverb-based words make up a sizeable share of complex units; this is
particularly true for adjectives and verbs. Unhurried, unhurried, buttoned-down,
conservative, traditional, drugged-out, turned-on, aroused, switched-off, burnedout, dragged-out, exhausted, squeezed-out, and tapped-out.
An enhanced propensity for multicomponent combinations is a characteristic
of complex word constructions. According to V. I. Zabotkina, more than 500 units
are made up of three parts: a point in time, a specific moment, and a middle-of-theroad contraction that is typical of pop music and appeals to a broad audience[15].
Another skill that this unit has developed is "moderate" (in politics). One of the
most popular multicomponent models has lately evolved into one with a word line,
which is on the verge of complex words and expressions: bottom-line final; top-ofthe-line is the best. The usage of this approach is restricted to casual interactions
between business circle representatives. Such a pragmatic restriction is usual for
multicomponent phrases like "ballpark figure approximate data" and "back of the
envelope close to it," which may be determined fast and readily without the need
for extensive calculations. Despite the latter two units' values appearing to be
similar, there is a significant difference between them: According to lexicographer
Sol Steinmetz, a back-of-the-envelope amount is one that is quickly or readily
calculated without the use of a pocket calculator. A ball-park figure is a tentative
estimate. As a result, even two or more units with different semantic properties can
exhibit pragmatic similarities. At the same time, pragmatic similarity is only seen
in one of the factors (by professional), and the local marking of two words
9
determines how pragmatically similar or dissimilar they are. Generally speaking,
multicomponent units employed in casual communication are more typical of the
American version, such as to nickel and dime pay close attention to detail, meat
and potatoes as the main course, nuts and bolts as the basic, and quick-and-dirty
bar cafe for a fast bite to eat. Knowing the lexical meaning of the constituent parts
of a compound word allows the translator to determine the meaning of the entire
complex: Belgrade hospitals' life support systems were turned off as a result of
graphite bombing that destroyed electricity lines. As you can see, the neologism
life-supports is made up of two parts: life ("life") and supports ("support"). This
signifies that we are referring to something that enables you to preserve life or
viability, and the suffix -s tells us that we are dealing with a countable noun in the
plural. The translation of this neologism, given the context, is "life support
equipment." Power cables were damaged during the bombardment using graphite
bombs, which led to the shutdown of life support systems in Belgrade hospitals.
1.2. Conversion as a mean of word formation in the English language.
Conversion, or using the same word in multiple parts of speech, is the
functional transition of a word from one part of speech to another. Some scientists,
however, believe that conversion is an act of word formation when the final words
are homonymous to the bases from which they originated but differ from them
paradigmatically. Therefore, for instance, you may now frequently see E-mail me /
us to on the Internet. It's not difficult to understand what is meant by such a phrase.
through analyzing the grammatical context, it is possible to determine whether a
word is a transitive verb. Given that the word "e-mail" has this meaning, we
translate: Send messages through e-mail to the address...
Conversion as a method of generating new words through derivation has seen
a sharp decline in activity and is now the least effective approach to generate new
words. According to the findings of our study, converted units only account for 3%
of all terms. The primary model is still N V, which generates numerous new
terminology like "backstroke," "lesion," "polygraph," etc. To soft-dock from soft10
dock orbital station docking without mechanical means; to carpool from carpool
control the car in turn on the way to work, shops, etc.; to red-line from red-line
discrimination of certain areas of the city by denying property owners loans,
insuranceSimilar to earlier stages of language development, nouns are currently
less frequently formed from verbs. As you are aware, this is because nouns in
English are simply constructed by adding affixes to verbs. There is a growing
propensity for converted nouns to develop from verbs with postpositions, such as
rip-off theft (from to rip-off to steal), workaround (an astronautics phrase), which
refers to a fallback plan in the event of a failed mission, and give-back, flowback,
pass along, and buy-off.
A large number of new nouns are created by changing adjectives into nouns,
for instance: cool self-control, restraint is frequently employed in phrases to lose
one's cool, to preserve one's cool; collectibles are collectibles, especially those that
are uncommon or obsolete.
Making nouns out of adjectives with the suffix "-ic" is particularly fruitful;
examples include acrylic, transuranic, and tricyclic. This model—autistic,
astigmatic, geriatric, prepsychotic—is frequently utilized in medicine. All of these
components were created through analogy with well-known ones like zealot,
alcoholic, and critic. The newly converted forms have a propensity for
multicomponent constructions, similar to affixes and compound words. Therefore,
verb tenses can be converted into nouns, as in the phrase: work-to-rule
performance of workers with requirements to comply with all employment contract
conditions.
The
new
converted
adjectives
exhibit
a
similar
trend
toward
multicomponentity: cents-off is decreased. The distinct forms of prefixes and semiprefixes used to create adjectives are registered in Barnhart's lexicon. For instance:
very emotional and agitated. For example, the verb "to psych" is used to indicate
"to suppress psychologically" in the phrase "to psych out" and "to stimulate,
excite" in the phrase "to psych up." There is an increasing trend to create converted
11
units from truncations. Converted units, as you are aware, are a unique class of
derivatives because of the internal (semantic) character of their performance.
Given the strong connection between semantics and pragmatics, it is vital to
analyze the semantic processes that go along with schooling through conversion
before moving on to pragmatic analysis.
The core of the new meaning is created by the inclusion of the seme "act
through the object" in addition to the muting of the seme "objectivity" in the
process of converting inanimate nouns into verbs. As an illustration, insert the
cassette into the tape recorder to cassette. The seme "face" is muted and the seme
"act like a face" is added when verbs are formed from animate nouns. For instance:
to flit about the city aimlessly like a butterfly. The seme "quality" is subdued and
the seme "object" is introduced when nouns are produced from adjectives at the
semantic level, becoming the focal point of the meaning of the substantiated unit:
acrylic acrylic (synthetic material). As a result, the concept's content is enhanced
during conversion. The majority of the transformed words have a professional
characteristic that restricts their use. Sports, medical, computer technology,
education, and politics are some of the professions that differentiate themselves
from other ones through the use of transformed terms. For instance: The definition
of the verb "acupuncture" is "to treat with acupuncture" (medical terminology); "to
access and extract data from a computer storage device" (microelectronics
terminology); The words "military" and "to summit take part in the summit" are
restricted to the political sphere; the pass/fail system is employed in the field of
education to evaluate students' knowledge without differentiated assessments.
The newly converted units are primarily limited to American English and, to a
lesser extent, to British English in terms of geographic scope. Conversion is a nonaffixal method of word formation that produces a categorically distinct word that
occasionally coexists with the original word.
In the case of morphologically transformed words, the newly created word
has a new paradigm, a new syntactic function, and a different meaning. For
12
instance: It was captured on film. She is really sweet. He braced up to take action.
He cut through the throng with an elbow. Your elders must be respected. He had
much too many obligations, and he was overwhelmed. Her hair is starting to turn
gray. They didn't tell us anything. I am powerless to intervene. I'll take a risk.
Individual forms of words related by the conversion relation may coincide or be
homonymous due to the homonymy of form-changing suffixes (including zero
inflection). For instance: The pictures should be hung on the wall. She looks better
than she does in photos. Give me your signature. He declined to sign the book. The
hosts welcomed the guests. Who will be the party's host? She exhibits fear. Not to
worry. A homonym that is semantically connected to the original word is created
during conversion. Based on the definition of the original word, you can determine
what the neoplasm means: She exclusively reads glossy comics and glossy
magazines. The performer received hisses before being escorted from the stage.
We made an effort to "cusion" (a pillow) the fall.
In the construction of words, conversion is also seen in the Russian language.
As an illustration, consider the words beaten guy (participle), beaten truths
(adjective), and day off (noun). The conversion is more effective in English
though. There are many non-derivative terms in English that are not attached to
any portion of speech, which accounts for the language's unique productivity of
conversion, the relatively few grammatical forms and inflectional affixes, as well
as their simplicity in formation. A change in the word's syntactic functioning,
coupled with a change in meaning, is the primary requirement for the production of
a new language unit by conversion. It is required to alter the comfortable syntactic
context for conversion.
When a word is used in a context that is unfamiliar to it or when one of the
components of the known context is omitted, as in the case of an ellipsis, the
syntactic environment changes. What is his hobby? is a one-time syntactically
uncommon use that results in the creation of a new word in the first instance.I'll do
it in the manner you specify. He gardens. He is most interested in the motivation
13
behind the crime. The introduction of a new word in a conversion caused by an
ellipsis must be preceded by the repeated combined use of two other words to
ensure intelligibility in the event that one of them is dropped.
By method of conversion, ellipsis causes adjectives and participles to become
nouns. For instance, a summit is derived from a summit meeting, a convertible is
derived from a convertible car or coat, a commercial is derived from a commercial
program, a regular is derived from a regular visitor, a supersonic is derived from a
supersonic aircraft, and newlyweds is derived from a newlywed pair. Not all words
that are now understood to have been converted were created in this manner.
During the alignment and ending-dropping era, many verbs and nouns
unintentionally had the same form (for instance, hate and to hate; rest and to rest;
smell and to scent; love and to love; work and to love; end and to end; answer and
to answers, etc.). During the assimilation process, certain pairs of cognate words
with foreign origin coincided both phonetically and graphically (for instance, doubt
and to doubt; change and to change, etc.). Regardless of the time and technique of
origin, any categorically dissimilar related terms that coincide in distinct forms are
viewed as homonyms from a modern perspective.
Verbalization (formation of verbs), substantiation (formation of nouns),
adjectivation (construction of adjectives), and adverbalization (creation of adverbs)
are the four primary types of conversion. Depending on the morphological
properties of the source and derived words, conversion proceeds in a different way.
If the original and derived words (or at least one of them) are morphologically
malleable, conversion of the first type is seen.
Not only must the word's lexical meaning and syntactic function change, but
also its inflectional paradigm must change for a new word to emerge during the
conversion of the first kind.
The first sort of conversion is most frequently seen in verbalization,
substantiation, and situations when the source word is a noun or verb. If the source
14
word and the generated term are both morphologically invariable, we can discuss
conversion of the second type.
The second sort of conversion entails altering the word's lexical meaning as
well as its syntactic function. Prepositions and adverbs (on, off, in, etc.),
prepositions and conjunctions (before, after, etc.), and pronouns and conjunctions
(who, when, why, etc.) can all be used in conversion relations of this sort. The first
type may undergo full or partial conversion. When a word is completely converted,
it takes on all the characteristics of the portion of speech it first appears in in terms
of syntactic function. Therefore, during verbalization, nouns and adjectives start to
signify an action, serve as a predicate, and also acquire all of the verb's inflectional
forms. For instance: The program is being recorded. The show has been recorded.
The show will be recorded, etc.
By changing the noun a tape to ferromagnetic tape, the verb tape is created.
The freshly generated word can perform the syntactic duties of a noun, employ
definite and indefinite articles, be completely substantivated by adjectives, and
have all the inflection patterns that come naturally to nouns. Not really a criminal,
for instance. Avoid harboring criminals. The offender was located.
A lot of adjectives are fully supported, like "revolutionary," "savage,"
"native," "relative," "private," "Conservative," "Russian," "American," etc. When a
word is partially converted, it may not always take on all the characteristics of the
new part of speech (this is frequently explained by the term's semantic
characteristics).
The grammatical characteristics of partially substantiated adjectives and
participles are that they can only be used with a definite article and that they agree
with the single verb (The supernatural is always terrifying. You've got to learn to
deal with the unavoidable. One can't possibly accomplish the impossible; only
have a plural form (exteriors filming on location, outside the pavilion; casual
shoes, every-day shoes; perennial evergreens); refuse to accept plural endings,
despite the fact that they agree with the plural verb (The fitting have endured. The
15
poor were provided for. The injured were taken urgently to a hospital. Many nouns
created by partial conversion of verbs are only used in the singular form, such as: It
genuinely scared me. That made me chuckle a lot. In doing so, you'll experience.
The movie was really long. The verbalization of nouns is the most prevalent
sort of conversion in contemporary English. There are numerous verbs that have
evolved from nouns: The motion is opposed by the committee I chair. They
entered safety by parachute. They mortared the infantry. I need the man to be
shadowed. He turned the pages of the book. Her eyes started to tear up. Simple
non-derived nouns are spoken more frequently. In English, almost all of the nouns
in this pattern match a verb. Adjectivizing participles and substantiveizing verbs
and adjectives are both rather common. Nouns created by verb conversion and
used with the verbs have, get, give, and take typically signify a single action: have
a try, give smb. a ring, take a look, get a call (from smb.), have a dip (in the sea),
give smb. a push.
The semantic relationship between participales and the adjectives derived
from them is distinct. Participles refer to a transient mark connected to an action
that is carried out or to which an object is exposed. Regardless of the current action
being taken, adjectives denote a sign. Compare the terms a standing man (a person
who is standing) and a standing rule (a regulation that is permanent); a walking
man (a person who is walking) and a walking case (a patient who is permitted to
leave their bed); running water (flowing water) and plumbing (running - adjective).
The adjective created from the participle is typically not employed as a predicate,
which is the grammatical difference. You cannot state that the rule is valid. Case is
moving around. Ho: This is a tenet of the law. A walking case, he. The following
primary word formation processes are used in modern English, either separately or
in combination with one another: conversion, affixation, compression, fundamental
construction, abbreviation, disaffixation, and meaning separation.
Foundation and compression were covered earlier. The process of choosing a
term from one of the possible meanings and placing it in its own independent
16
dictionary unit is known as separation of meaning (or, more precisely, isolation of
the derived meaning of a polysemantic word). When the semantic link between the
derived and original meanings vanishes, there is a separation of meaning. For
instance, the word tun, which refers to a large barrel, has a detachable meaning in
the noun ton ton (formerly written tun).
The separation of the specific meaning of a measure of weight led to the
creation of the word "pound sterling." (The connotation became distinct when gold
started to be used as money in place of silver, whose pound served as the monetary
unit but was heavier than it.) Separation of meaning is a unique phenomena that is
only comparable to other word-formation techniques in terms of the end result:
when separating the meaning, a new dictionary unit is created. Neoplasms should
not only include words that have been added to word dictionaries and lists of new
words, but also potential words, or words that are not directly produced by the
speaker but rather emerge during speech from the vocabulary of the language and
follow grammatical patterns.
Despite not yet being included into the vocabulary as complete linguistic
units, these formations are understandable to all language users. If such words are
successfully developed and if there is a social need for them, they will eventually
be adopted by other speakers, replicated in countless acts of circulation, and
transformed into actual linguistic units. Potential words include formations like
honeymooners (from the compound verb to honeymoon to spend a honeymoon),
Spanishness (from the adj. Spanish Spanish), Africanness (from the adj. African
African), and out-of-the-wayness (from the adj. out-of-the-way remote, distant;
unusual, strange). Despite the fact that these terms have not yet been entered into
English dictionaries, they are generated in accordance with existing patterns—
"adjective stem + suffix -ness" and "verb stem + suffix -er"—and are therefore
understandable to native English speakers.
1.3. Other types of word formation in the English language. Disaffixation
is a process of word creation in which a suffix or an element that resembles a
17
suffix is dropped from a word. As a result, verbs like "burgle" and "beg" are
developed from actual burglars, "enthuse" and "enthusiasm," "legislate" and
"diplome," respectively, from actual legislators and diplomats. Disaffixation is
more frequently seen in modern English during the compression of phrases and
neutral constructions, which creates complex words like to vacuumclean (to housekeep, to housewarm, to stagemanage).
Abbreviations - Among the atypical forms of word construction,
abbreviations have emerged as the most successful in recent years. They reflect the
urge to rationalize language in order to reduce linguistic effort. Even though
abbreviations only make up a small portion of all word-formation techniques, their
use is increasing. Truncated terms are the most common of the four forms of
abbreviations (abbreviations, acronyms, truncations, and mergers). Similar to
earlier stages of language development, apocopes (truncation of the final section)
are the most common type of truncation. The entire morpheme is shortened in this
instance: organizing television or radio broadcasts is the definition of anchor or
anchorman.
The term "detox" is only used in its American form (in the British form, it
relates to the presenter): detoxification, which is a department in a hospital or
clinic where alcoholics and drug addicts receive treatment. I underwent detox once
again, and in the five years after coming out, I haven't taken a drink or a
medication. Sometimes a morpheme is incomplete, as in the case of the word "lib,"
which stands for "liberation." Initial abbreviations are less common, as is custom
and practice: Chauvinism refers to masculine chauvinism, butylnitrite refers to the
substance (iso) butylnitrite, and upmanship refers to the capacity to outperform
others. There aren't many instances of mid-word truncation (syncopes): television
programs with closed captions or closed circuit captions are; A microfilm card
with several thousand printed pages, as opposed to a microfiche with only a few
hundred printed pages, is referred to as an ultramicrofiche. Ecotecture is an
architectural style that prioritizes environmental protection over current needs.
18
Truncations of the mixed variety—scrip for prescription in the American version
and litcrit for literary criticism in the British version—are ineffective. Truncations
are characterized by a lack of stylistic coloration, therefore their use is restricted to
informal speech. Truncation most frequently occurs in a variety of slang
expressions (school, sports, newspaper). The examples given above mostly consist
of newspaper clippings. As a result, upmanship frequently appears in English
media and is utilized in ads and business advice. Upmanship, for instance, is the
practice of having an advantage over everyone else. Hospital snobbery: My doctor
is superior to yours. A significant portion of abbreviations are acronyms and
abbreviations. Technical terminology, group names, and organization names are
the most common subjects for abbreviations. VCR (video cassette recorder), TM
(transcendental meditation), PC (personal computer), and MTV (Music Television
cable television channel broadcasting rock music) are examples of abbreviations
that are typically used more frequently than the terms themselves. Typically,
acronyms are written out like I. V. (intravenous) intravenously. An abbreviation is
read as a full term if it only appears in writing. The abbreviations' lack of dots after
each letter, which brings them closer to acronyms, is novel. Acronyms are
pronounced like complete words, unlike abbreviations. For instance, MIPS
(million instructions per second) CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computeraided manufacturing) agreements on the restriction of strategic weapons. They
frequently adopt the grammar of common phrases, such as the plural WASPs
(White Anglo-Saxon Protestants).
Homonymy is a phenomenon that has been noted in recent decades'
acronyms. Several organizations battling against environmental pollution utilize
one of the most well-known acronyms, GASP, in their speeches: Group Againts
Smoke and Pollution, Greater Washington Alliance to halt Pollution. Generally
speaking, acronyms have a very specific range. The denotative nature of the terms
used in acronyms establishes limitations on their use. Computer technology has
limitations when it comes to MIPS, RAM, and ROM; PINS (persons in need of
19
supervision), SWAT (special weapons and tactics), and GUIDO (guidance officer)
are used in aerospace; and MEDLARS (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval
System) is used in medicine. • Everyone is familiar with TEFL (Teaching English
as a Foreign Language), the international association of English language teachers.
IATEFL (International Association of Teachers English as a Foreign Language)
and TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) are American
organizations that work in the field of education. • In the sphere of environmental
protection, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) and ADAPTS (Air
Deliverable Antipollution Transfer System). For example, an anti-smoking
organization came up with the acronym ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) in
an effort to be more creative. NOW (National Organization for Women) is an
alternative.
Linguists have started to discuss the necessity to halt this process, which they
refer to as acronyms, in relation with the widespread usage of acronyms. The list of
acronyms and the method used to create them needed to be streamlined in this
regard. The creation of telescopic nominations, words-ingots, and words-purses
might be considered one of the expressions of the law of saving speech, often
known as the "principle of least effort".
There is a tendency for the number of these units to rise among terms from
recent decades. They made up 4.8% of all the terms, according to the information
we discovered through our examination of the first Barnhart dictionary. By the
second edition of Barnhart's dictionary, they accounted for 8% of the overall word
count. Partial ingot words—that is, structures in which one truncated element and
the full form of another element are combined—predominate among them.
The two most successful examples of the first component's final truncation
are the Europlug (European plug) electrical plug and cigaretiquette (cigarette,
etiquette). The initial abbreviation of the second component, such as in airtel (air,
hotel), workaholic (work, alcoholic), is less common. Oates claims that the
workaholic leaves society because he lives, breathes, and sleeps work. How does a
20
workaholic recognize his addiction? Sometimes he only learns about it after having
a heart attack, or in the instance of Oates, when his five-year-old son requests a
visit from him. The last unit was so well-liked that the element holic/aholic was
picked out and contributed to the development of several additional forms, earning
the title of a semi-affix. Examples of the second component's final truncation in
isolation include Kidvid (kid, video) children's television shows. The occurrence of
full telescope words, in which both elements are truncated, has decreased during
the past ten years.
Among these, disohol (diesel, alcohol), a blend of diesel fuel and ethyl
alcohol, and drizzerable (drizzling, miserable), units with the final truncation of the
first component and the initial truncation of the second component predominate.
Less common units include zedonk (zebra, donkey), sitcom (situation, comedy),
which is a radio and television comedy based on made-up circumstances centered
around one or more people. Compare: the yup-com television comedy. There is a
propensity to design stimoceiver (stimulate, -o-, receiver) units in telescopic
formations. In haplological telescopic words, phonemes are superimposed at the
intersection of two words. Examples include slimnastics (slim, gymnastics),
faction (fact, fiction), and fiction based on documentary facts. New hybrids are
frequently given telescopic nomenclature, such as yakow (yak, cow), beefalo (beef,
buffalo), and citringe (citron, orange). Telescopic nominations exhibit a different
level of fragmentation and motivation than compound words, which is explained
by the existence of concealed cut-off components, and they both exhibit a tendency
towards the universalization and rationality of the language. The media and
advertising employ the majority of bullion terms. Every single lady, every single
day, has one hour of tennis, one hour in the pool, and one hour of slimnastics. This
grabs the reader's attention because of the form's novelty and unexpectedness, as
well as its pragmatic consequence.
In contemporary colloquial and journalistic speech, that is, in those
communication styles of speech where the demand for presenting efficiency is
21
particularly obvious, conjunctive words and bullion words play a significant role.
Actively used by TV personnel informercial a 15-minute cable television show that
combines music and information with advertising; infotainment. In the context of
young people, terms like "dancercise" and "jazzercise" are frequently employed.
The range of brand names in sports and fashion also places a limit on the use of
telescopic neoplasms. As a result, Adi Dassler, the creator of the sportswear and
footwear company, is the source of the well-known Adidas trademark.
Thus, the term "word formation" is used to describe words that are newly
created on linguistic material in complete accordance with word-formation models
of words or phrases already used in the language and that signify a new, previously
unidentified, nonexistent concept, subject, branch of science, occupation, or
profession. The phrases "jazzercise" and "dancercise" are widely used in relation to
young people. Telescopic neoplasm use is also constrained by the variety of
fashion and sports brand names. Thus, the well-known Adidas trademark
originates from Adi Dassler, the founder of the sportswear and footwear business.
Consequently, the term "word formation" is used to describe words that are
newly created on linguistic material in exact accordance with word-formation
models of words or phrases already used in the language and that denote a new,
previously unknown, nonexistent concept, subject, branch of science, occupation,
or profession. He also takes into account the perestroika era in Russia as a crucial
force in the realm of world politics and a significant source of new lexicon. He
names the fields of medicine and health care as following in significance, then the
fields of money and business. Computers are another option. By actively
introducing new words, he describes the next area of existence and daily living as
taking care of one's look (obsession with appearances). The underworld then
follows. Euphemisms are specifically mentioned by him as a source of new
terminology. Unlike D. Green, Eito has updated his dictionary to include modern
scientific and technological terms. Therefore, there are many similarities between
all proposed classes. Due to a variety of benefits, including linguistic validity and
22
consistency, a clear functional and pragmatic direction, modernity and relevance,
compactness and ease of use for practical purposes in the analysis of speech
material, J. Eito's classification seems to us to be the most acceptable. The vast
time perspective of J. Green's vocabulary is without a doubt a benefit. It
purposefully only covers brand-new lexical constructions that have endured for 30
years. It has unquestionable benefits in terms of the accuracy of information
regarding whether a new lexical unit has become a part of the language or not. In
terms of our use of both dictionaries, we generally found to be the most dependable
and acceptable. Additionally, we used the Longman Active Study Dictionary of
English, the NTCS mass media dictionary, and the Oxford Advanced Learner's
Dictionary of Current English, all written by A.S. Hornby. NTCS Dictionary of
American Slang by Richard A. Spears; Longman Guide to English Usage by S
Greenbaum and g. whitecut; The American Heritage Desk Dictionary, and
Appendix to the Great English-Russian Dictionary (under the editorship of I.R.
Galperin).
By decreasing (truncating) the stem, new words are created by abbreviation.
This process of word construction results in the creation of words with an
incomplete, truncated stem (or stems), known as abbreviations. There are both
basic and sophisticated abbreviations. Simple abbreviations are created by omitting
the stem's last or first syllable. Examples are caps (capital letters), demo
(demonstration), intro (the opening line of an article in a newspaper that should
pique the reader's interest), and ad (advertisement). In the language, abbreviations,
which are supplementary names for objects and have equal status with their full
names, are aesthetically tinted terms with a familiar, unofficial air. Compare, for
instance, the phrases sister and sis, doctor and doc, referee and prof, second and
sec, difference and dif, promenade and prom, operation and op, etc. The
abbreviated word becomes aesthetically neutral if the original word is forgotten or
starts to be used less frequently and it becomes the primary rather than the
secondary name of the subject: Perm (from permanent wave), phone (from
23
telephone), bus (from omnibus), aircraft (from airplane), cab (from cabriolet), etc.
Complex abbreviations (abbreviated words) are made up of the beginning letters or
syllables of words and their stems, or a mixture of those letters and whole stems.
They are created by the actions of abbreviation and fundamental composition. As
an illustration, consider the terms CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), VDay (Victory Day), hi-fi (high fidelity), sci-fic (science fiction), and PA system
(public address system). Initial abbreviations, often known as acronyms, are
abbreviations that are made up of the first letters of words and stems. According to
the principles of reading, acronyms can be read as words or as letters (see Russian
Central Committee, CPSU, All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions). For
instance:
['si:
'ai'si:]
CIC
—Cyber
Intelligence
Corps
['ju:'neskou]
UNESCOOrganization for Scientific and Cultural Research in the United Nations
['neitou] NATO, often known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, When an
initial letter and a full stem are combined to make a complicated shortened word,
the first element has an alphabetic reading. For instance, the G-man FBI agent, the
H-bomb hydrogen bomb, and the A-bomb atomic bomb.
1.4. Affixation as an effective way of word formation. Affixal-suffixal
word formation is one method of word formation. Affixal units are typically
generated totally according to the English word-formation traditions; their
morphological structure and the nature of the meaning's motivation fit within the
notion of an everyday, standard term that has evolved among English speakers.
Because of this, native speakers only consciously notice the use of derivative
words when they are aware of the uniqueness of the signified.
Affixal units are slightly less common than compound words, making up 24%
of all neoplasms. Modern affixes are distinguished by their nomenclature and
rigorous pragmatic adherence to a particular scientific and technical discipline.
Science-related affixal neoplasms account for around half of all cases. Affixal units
are typically generated totally according to the English word-formation traditions;
their morphological structure and the nature of the meaning's motivation fit within
24
the notion of an everyday, standard term that has evolved among English speakers.
Because of this, native speakers only consciously notice the use of derivative
words when they are aware of the uniqueness of the signified. Affixal units are
slightly less common than compound words, making up 24% of all neoplasms.
Modern affixes are distinguished by their nomenclature and rigorous
pragmatic adherence to a particular scientific and technical discipline. Sciencerelated affixal neoplasms account for around half of all cases. In this regard, I'd
like to remind you that word composition and affixal word creation are the two
main processes by which words are formed in the English language, according to J.
Eigo, the author of the dictionary "Longman Register of New Words."
The fact that affixal neoplasms are completely generated in accordance with
conventional English word-formation processes is one of the characteristics of
affixal production noted by Zabotkina V.I. The affixal lexical units' morphological
organization and the reason behind their meaning correspond to what most native
English speakers consider to be a typical, everyday word. The real words are
created using this technique.
Although generally speaking Zabotkina V. I. prioritizes phonological words
and borrowings and places affixal word construction only as the third most
important manner of word formation. The creation of new terminology in physics
and biology is where derivation is most active. For instance, the suffix -on (basic
unit or particle) is used to generate names like "gluon" and "luxon," which are
examples of new elementary particles in physics that bind quarks together.
The suffix -ase (enzyme) has become widely used as a result of the discovery
of numerous novel enzymes. The suffix originally came from the diastase enzyme,
a terminal enzyme that breaks down carbs into sugar. The new suffix -sol, which
comes from the Latin solum soil, is actively used in soil taxonomy to designate
many types of soils, such aridisol (in the American version) desert soil, histosol
wet soils, vertisol clay soils, and hioxisol tropical soils. The rising importance of
semi-prefixes is shown by prefix units. Semi-prefixes are recognized to be more
25
semantically loaded than prefixes and to have a higher impact on the semantics of
the derived unit.
Latin, French, and Greek are the primary sources of semi-prefixes like acro-, bio-,
xeno-, micro-, euro-, and tele-. Usually, only scientific and technological sectors
make use of them. However, semi-prefixes are widely used as a result of the
popularization and diffusion of technological developments in daily life. The
following semi-prefixes are isolated from phrases and compound words: flexi
flexible - from the Flexi Van brand; dial-a (to denote a service that can be booked
by phone) from dialphone, for instance, dial-a-bus, dial-a-meal. Flexicover,
Flexinomics, and Flexiroof are a few examples.
In informal communication in America, the prefix mega-, which serves as an
intensifying particle, is quite common. Adolescents have been actively using this
prefix in their vocabulary in recent years. For instance, the phrase megadual
(completely fantastic) is used to indicate the highest appraisal of an event, a
phenomenon, or a person.Dual in this context refers to something that is "twice as
good". In quantitative terms, suffix units are inferior to prefix units; yet, they are
more prevalent in everyday speech and more clearly identifiable as "slang." The
suffix -y / -ie is one of the most popular slang endings and is included in the
Barnhart dictionary as having acquired a new negative (ironic) connotation. The
framework of informal communication, particularly among young people, restricts
the use of the terms created with its assistance.
For instance, a roadie is a musician's group member who is in charge of
transporting and installing equipment; a weepy sentimental movie; a preppie is a
student at an honest, privileged school (a term used ironically by middle-class
representatives); and a tekky is a tech enthusiast. a person who is fixated on
technological advancement. Separated from words, semi-suffixes require specific
consideration.
Thus, the suffixes -aholic, -holic, or -oholic were removed from the word
workaholic (work + alcoholic), which refers to a person who is consumed by their
26
work. The typical meaning of these affixes, such as "chocoholic," "bookoholic,"
"cheesoholic," "coffeholic," and "computerholic," is infatuation with something.
The prefix "-gate" was borrowed from the term "Watergate" (used to describe a
scandal involving corruption and the withholding of information). In other words,
free forms are being morphologized. The contraction of phrases in which the
predicative connection is simply explained by the transition of predicativation
results in a high degree of fragmentation of new affixal units, which is another
characteristic: A no-goodnik is someone who is useless, whereas a good-willnik is
someone who has bad intentions. a person who does everything themselves at
home; compare to do-it-yourselfer. See also: right to life; do-nothing.
There is a tendency in this situation to condense every notion, no matter how
complex, into a single word since, according to native speakers (informants), a
word has considerably more expressive and significant potential than a phrase. The
unconscious belief that what is conveyed by many or several words is never as
dazzling, compelling, "capacious," never conveys the whole idea as thoroughly and
deeply as what is said in one word is the foundation for the development of
numerous derivative and complicated words in the English language. The affix
system is thus currently characterized by the emergence of entirely new affixes and
semi-affixes, new meanings for affixes and variants (shades) of meanings, new
models, and limitations on their use. Derivation is typically characterized by an
increase in semantic potential with a considerable semantic and structural diversity
of producing words at the most recent stage of language development. Affixes
differ pragmatically depending on the context of application. Word formation
examples in contemporary English: Brain-drain, n. brain drain; has-been, n. a
prominent man who has lost his former prominence; sit-in, n. sit-in; stay-in, n.
picketing; shut-down, n. liquidation or closing of a plant or factory;
By affixing word-enhancing suffixes to the word stem, new words can be
created. Affixes that cause a significant number of neoplasms to develop over time
are referred to as prolific affixes. In contemporary English, the suffixes -ing, -y, 27
her, -ist, -er, -ette, ed, etc. are useful, as are the prefixes anti-, super-, pro-, mis-, re, etc. These affixes enable the creation of new derivative words, both simple and
complicated. As an illustration, consider the following terms: summitologist,
summit supporter, superwar, nuclear war, weightlessness, kitchenette, small
kitchen, environmentalist, anti-pollution, and pedestrianize. someplace, ban.
Leftist; Pentagon-pleasing Pentago-nese language; a smarty; a cute beauty; a
sweetheart; a lefty is left-handed; traffic, permitting only foot movement. There are
many native and borrowed affixes in contemporary English. Not all of them,
nevertheless, are currently used as word-forming components.
Academician V.V. Vinogradov observes that affixes that convey being affixes
and only conceivably preserve the quality of being distinct are those that have lost
their meaning, become ineffective, and are simply regarded as an indication of one
or another component of speech. In this context, it is only natural to ask what
should be considered a living affix and what characteristics it should have in
contemporary English.
According to the analysis of the linguistic data, live affixes possess the
following traits: a) The affix indicates a specific abstract meaning by attaching the
word-producing stem. b) The root morpheme, when separating this affix, must be
able to be utilized in the language without an affix or construct new words with the
aid of additional affixes. The affix is easily recognizable as a word-forming
element and is clearly recognized in the speaker's mind as part of the word. c) The
prefix is utilized to create new words from a variety of sources, including those
other than the origin from whence it first arose in the language. If it is a borrowed
affix, then English soil must give forms. b) The affix is used a specific amount
frequently. This or that affix is more productive the more formations it provides.
Due to the fact that numerous affixes are formed during compounding from
independent words, it is important to take this aspect into consideration. One of a
compound word's constituents starts to appear more frequently when combined
with other bases, losing its original meaning and gradually obtaining an abstract
28
meaning that is shared by a class of words as a whole. The more often this element
appears in terms throughout the language, the more likely it is that it is an affix
rather than a part of a composite word. e) A living affix should give new
formations.
If it is a borrowed affix, then English soil must give forms. b) The affix is
used a specific amount frequently. This or that affix is more productive the more
formations it provides. Due to the fact that numerous affixes are formed during
compounding from independent words, it is important to take this aspect into
consideration. One of a compound word's constituents starts to appear more
frequently when combined with other bases, losing its original meaning and
gradually obtaining an abstract meaning that is shared by a class of words as a
whole. The more often this element appears in terms throughout the language, the
more likely it is that it is an affix rather than a part of a composite word. All
productive affixes are naturally alive, albeit not all living affixes are equally
productive. Here, productivity is defined as the number of words that emerged
during the time that a given affix existed in the language as a word-forming
element, as well as the frequency with which neoplasms with a certain affix occur.
In light of this, affixes can be unproductive, productive, or even possess what
is known as "absolute productivity," or the capacity to produce words with the
fewest constraints possible. In order to build words from the bases of different
parts of speech and so express distinct meanings, homophone affixes are to be
viewed as word-forming components that agree in their exterior design (sound and
spelling). Therefore, it is important to consider more than just an affix's formal
characteristics when interpreting it. You should also consider the affix's use,
provenance, and meaning.
Numerous things can lead to homophone suffixes: By a) appropriating affixes
that, on the surface, are identical to affixes already present in the language (for
instance, compare the original adjective suffix - ish and the verbal suffix - ish
adopted from French); The same affixes gain the ability to express not only
29
different shades of the same meaning, but sometimes completely different
meanings, i.e., the ambiguity of an affix can turn into affixal homonymy. This
differentiation of the meanings of one or more affixes occurs when it is used to
form any part of speech from the bases of various parts of speech. For instance, the
suffix "-ish" in the terms "dwarfish" means "underdeveloped," "freakish
capricious," "bizarre," and "yellowish" means "yellowish," "lightish," and
"blackish." c) Homonymous affixes can develop as a result of a change in the
functions of an affix already present in the language, such as the adjective suffix ed, which evolved from the formative suffix of verbs - ed; d) frequently,
homonymous affixes develop as a result of the fact that affixes of different origin,
which initially differed not only in their meaning but also in the form itself. The
semantic link between affixes and word-producing stems is taken into
consideration when defining patterns of affix use in modern English. By "semantic
connection," we mean the relationship by which new words are created in the
language with the aid of a given affix from a certain part of speech as well as from
a specific semantic class of words within that part of speech that the affix can be
combined. Only the meaning of the affix, which it expresses, the meaning of wordproducing stems, and the formation of new words can account for this
interdependence. prefix un- At a very early period in the development of the
English language, the adjective prefix un- already existed as a word-forming
component. It has been a highly useful affix at every stage of the language's
development. Numerous formations in un- were already present in the Old English
era
of
language
development.
For
instance,
"un-be-boht"
stands
for
"uncorruptible," "un-ge-cynde" for "ungrateful, unkind," "un-ge-cnawen" for
"unknown," "un-ripe" for "unripe," and "unmihtig" for "weak, weak, powerless"
(compare. "unmighty"). Un- adjectives have been examined to see how this prefix
has been used over time. The prefix un- was frequently used to create nouns in Old
English. As an illustration, consider the following terms: un-ar dishonor, un-bealu
30
innocence, un-lust dissatisfaction, un-meant infirmity, un-riht wrong, and un-banc
ingratitude.
Middle English also made use of this prefix in a similar manner. However, the
prefix un- started to only be used to make adjectives in New English, and
exclusively from the stems of adjectives. Other elements of speech do not currently
start with the prefix un-. The rare nouns that contain the prefix un-, such as
unkindness, unwiseness, etc., are formed by adding the noun suffix -ness to the
adjectives unkind (unkind) and unwise (foolish, irrational).
According to O. Jespersen, the un- prefix creates adjectives and adverbs. In
reality, however, the prefix un- does not create adverbs because all adverbs that
contain un- in their construction, along with nouns, originate from the
corresponding adjectives on un-. Adverbs like unadvised, unaware, uncommon,
undisturbed, unreserved, unwilling, and unwitting are thus descended from
adjectives like unadvised, thoughtless, unexpected, not knowing, not suspecting
anything, uncommon, wonderful (this adjective was changed into the adverb
uncommon), calm, and unreserved. When used with adjectives, the un- prefix can
occasionally produce a word that has the opposite meaning and serves as an
antonym. Un- also occasionally only approximates the opposite connotation of
what the word-forming stem is trying to convey. Examples include: safe and
unsafe dangerous; pointed is sharp and unpointed is blunt; sound healthy, strong,
durable; and unsound sick, sickly, spoiled, or rotten; reserved hidden and
unreserved overt; selfish selfish and unselfish disinterested; and read as educated,
well-read; and unread as illiterate, uneducated; thinking is reasonable and
unthinking reckless, frivolous.
The prefix un- only approximates the opposite meaning of the adjective in the
examples below: abiding is transitive and unabiding is permanent; manageable is
docile and unmanageable is difficult to control or handle; parliamentary is inherent
in parliament and unparliamentary is against parliamentary customs; workmanlike
is skillful and unworkmanlike is made in an amateurish manner, amateurish.
31
There are numerous adjectives in contemporary English where the prefix unreflects the idea of what is absent from what the word-forming stem signifies.
Examples include: unfriended having no friends; unmatched having no matches;
unaccomplished lacking in secular gloss; unparented being parentless orphans;
unballasted having no supporters; uncritical lacking in criticism; unbeneficed not
having a beneficiation; parish; unfriendly being hostile; ungraceful being rough;
unquiet excited; unbelievable being unbelievable. The only native English
adjective prefix that has been and continues to be a living and extremely
productive word-forming component throughout all phases of the language's
history is un-. Due to the underdeveloped method of expressing negation with
unique particles in Germanic languages, he was able to do a lot of work. In this
case, the prefix un-, a word-forming component that expresses negation, will be
required. before in- With Latin stems, the prefix in- (or one of its phonetic forms)
appears before l, im- before b, p, and t, and ir- before r. This is a historical affix or
morphological indication for adjectives in contemporary English. Although the
prefix itself does not currently contribute to word formation, the use of the unprefix is significantly influenced by formations in the in- prefix.
Generally speaking, formations beginning with the prefix in- were employed
to represent a more condensed, focused, and confined thought or meaning than
those beginning with the prefix un-. Since uncautious includes the mere inability to
employ caution (caution), and incautious incorporates the extreme opposite of
caution (caution), i.e. recklessness, it reflects a narrower concept than uncautious
or not cautious. The prefix un- expresses the negation of a quality, attribute, etc.,
whereas formations on in- are typically antonyms of unprefixed stems. Examples
include: irreligious means ungodly, neglecting the fear and worship of god
(godless), wicked, sinful; unreligious means not religious (non-religious, not
related to religion); inartistic means tasteless (tasteless, devoid of elegant taste,
non-artistic, devoid of artistic flair; banal); unartistic means not artistic (not artistic,
not artistic).
32
Prefix non- There are instances where the formations on in- and on un- have
developed a specific meaning in addition to merely negating what the stem
expresses, and we need to communicate the meaning of a basic negation. In these
circumstances, we use the prefix non- Thus, the adjective unchristian, for instance,
was used to describe something that is the opposite of Christianity in a wider sense
for so long that it was required to coin a new word to describe things or people that
were not clearly Christian. The term "non-Christian" started to be used for this
reason.
Thus, the prefix non- is utilized when a word with a simple negation needs to
be created from the same stem but the language already contains adjectives with
in- or un-. As an illustration, the words inhuman and unhuman have taken on the
meaning "cruel, bestial, unbearable," and we need to construct a word with the
simple negative "not human, but some other," i.e. not referring to a person in the
strictest sense of the word. We use the term non-human (other than human) in this
situation. Other examples are non-natural (deviating from nature), non-logical
(proceeding by means other than logic), and illogical. The non- prefix can be used
to make nouns, in contrast to other prefixes in this group, and expresses the
meaning: "an object or phenomenon that does not contain what the word-forming
stem means." Examples include non-conductor. non-conducting (insulating); nonviolent non-violence and non-opposition lack of opposition to authority and
fulfillment non-fulfilment. add the a- Only nouns having a Greek origin can use the
prefix a- (or an- before a vowel and h). In several areas of science, primarily in
biology, chemistry, and medicine, and less frequently in the social sciences, the
prefix a-, which is clearly identifiable, is freely employed to form negations.
As an illustration, consider the following terms: acotyledonous, seedless,
achromatic, colorless, colorless, anhydrous, etc. When it is thought that the
formations in un-, in-, and non- are too particular in meaning and do not strongly
communicate the negation or absence of all the attributes or qualities contained in
the affirmative component (i.e. base), the prefix a- is sometimes employed to build
33
new terms. For instance, when it was realized that immoral, ummoral, and
nonmoral did not explicitly reject the presence of all the qualities inherent in a
moral person, the term "amoral" (cf. immoral) was coined. Asocial, as opposed to
unsocial and non-social, conveys the sense of the negation of all the characteristics
that the word "social" has. Prefix self- When the first part of compound words is
added together, the prefix self- is created.
Old English contains self-formations, but the majority of them are nouns.
Examples include self-eata samoyed (also known as self-eating), self-cwalu
suicide, and self-sceaft self-creation. The majority of self-derivatives refer to the
close of the Middle English and New English eras. Self- has a variety of quirks in
use as a word-forming component. It aids in the formation of English nouns and
adjectives. However, nouns are significantly more prevalent than adjectives.
Adjective and noun stems have quite different syntactic and semantic relationships
to one another.
Adjectives take on the meaning of an agent or object when used in syntactic
constructs. Examples include self-governing—governing on one's own (selfgoverning), self-diffusive—diffusive on one's own (self-propagating), selfrighting—righting on one's own (self-righting), and self-made—made on one's
own (at home). Formations on self-relating nouns present a distinct picture. The
complement function of self- is developed into syntactic constructions. For
instance, self-abhorrence is the act of abhorring oneself (self-disgust), self-murder
is the act of killing oneself (suicide), self-reproach is the act of reproaching or
condemning oneself (self-flagellation), self-control is the act of controlling one's
faculties or energies, and self-denial is the act of depriving oneself of pleasure
(self-denial).
In reality, practically any adjectivized participle can be converted into an
adjective with the self-prefix. The adjectivized participles of reflexive, transitive,
and intransitive verbs, as well as derivative adjectives created from the same verbs,
are all included in the semantic class that can be coupled with the prefix self-.
34
The prefix auto-, which is a synonym for the word self- in English, is a Greek
borrowing. The prefix auto- is derived from the pronominal noun autos, which
signifies "self." The prefix only automatically entered English during the New
English period, as O. Jespersen notes.
The prefix auto- is still in use in contemporary English, albeit it is not
frequently used as a word-forming component. This can be explained by the fact
that it already had a native English word-forming element with the same meaning
when it was borrowed into English, which formed words connected to diverse
sectors of production activity. The auto- prefix kept this characteristic after
assimilating words from scientific jargon into the English language. Additionally,
all auto-formations are formed from adjectives. As an illustration, consider the
following terms: autobiographical; autochthonal primeval (referring to the
country's
inhabitants);
autocratic;
autogamous
self-fertile;
automatic(al);
autonomous; autonomous, self-governing; and automotive self-propelled.
Prefix well: As of this writing, there is no consensus in English as to the
nature of this word-forming component. Some people use the prefix well- as a
prefix, while others use it to refer to the first parts of complex words. The fact that
well- is written with a hyphen with the second component and is spoken with an
accent that is equivalent in strength to the second component likely explains why
formations on well- are assigned to compound words. For instance, well-equipped,
balanced, and well-connected. These formal characteristics, however, are not
necessarily decisive in identifying an element's word-forming function. Due to
additional characteristics, the well- element should be regarded as a word-forming
prefix. Well- occurs with the same abstract meaning of a positive degree, quality,
or attribute in a sequence of word formations, as indicated by the word-forming
stem.
So, well- signifies "sufficiently such as, as indicated by the word-forming
stem." For instance: elderly in good health; balanced, typical, and well-aged wellborn (born into a noble or respectable family; especially of a person, courteous and
35
kind in demeanor; well-liked gorgeous; appealing; adult who has reached a
satisfactory level of development, especially of a person who has nearly completed
their physical growth potential; well-done completed, equipped, completely
stocked, and well-knit fully, extensively, or commonly understood; well-seen;
clear and obvious; well-timed; timely; well-read, well-built, and stocky; they are
also well-tried, well-tried, and well-tested. Only adjectives can be produced by the
derivational element well- because it can only be joined to adjectival stems
(including stems of adjectival participles and adjectival stems generated from
nouns with the suffix -ed). An illustration would be "well-turned," "successful,"
"dexterous," "well-meaning," "well-liked," "blooming," "plump," and "thick."
1.5. Suffixation as a way of word formation. using noun suffixes Add the
suffix "-er" The agentive noun suffix -er is the most effective of all of them. It has
created numerous terms from different parts of speech over its time in the English
language and has amassed a variety of meanings. With the use of the -er suffix,
nouns were created in Old English from nouns and verbs to signify individuals
engaged in the activity denoted by the producing stem. For instance: cartere (Mod.
E.) carter; outridere (Mod. E.) riding, escorting the carriage; traveling salesperson;
haberdaschere (Mod. E.) haberdasher; writere (Mod. E.) scribe, copyist, writer.
The -er suffix also implies an agentive connotation in Middle English. To s. A.,
words like "builder" and "bookbinder" ascend, as do "hatter" and "hunter,"
"saddler," and "weaver," among others. But at this point, the suffix "-er" takes on a
new meaning. The first thing that shows up are nouns, where the suffix -er denotes
locality. For instance, a Londoner is a resident of London, an Englishman is an
Englishman, etc. Future - er acquires not just the agentive meaning but also the
tool one (from the early New English period). This is due to the proliferation of
devices, equipment, and other technological advancements. started performing the
tasks that had previously required a person. For instance, a door knocker, a roller
roller, etc. We can discuss the existence of two homonym suffixes—-er with an
agentive meaning and—er with a tool meaning—because the suffix -er has recently
36
become more productive and employed while maintaining its agentive and tool
meanings. In contrast to the past, when this suffix could only be paired with the
stems of verbs and nouns, it is now occasionally able to create new nouns from the
stems of adjectives and even numbers. The noun stems are joined by the suffix -er,
which conveys the idea of a person being a member of the city, town, country, etc.
that the noun stem is referring to. The word-forming stems in this instance should
naturally be those of nouns designating a specific location (country, settlement,
island, etc.). An New Yorker Islander, Islander, Islander; New Yorker, New
Yorker. When used with the bases of adjectives expressing locality, the word "er"
implies a similar sense. British, Northerner, Northern Resident, Foreigner from the
South, etc. A characteristic trait or feature found in the stem can be expressed by
the suffix -er. This characteristic inspired the face's name. In certain circumstances,
the suffix -er is added to the bases of adjectives designating a hue or a particular
quality. For instance: fresher (univ. sl.) freshman; greener (sl.) newcomer. The
meaning "a person of the age indicated by the word-producing suffix" is
sometimes expressed by the word's ending, "-er." These nouns are constructed
using numerals as their building blocks (within the context of a person's age
features). For instance: forty-niner (colloquial) a guy who is forty-nine years old;
fifteeners and sixteeners (colloquial) young men who are fifteen and sixteen years
old.
Numerous nouns are composed of formations on -er from verbal stems,
joining which this suffix likewise indicates an agentive sense, although in a variety
of ways (polysemy): a) A person who is continuously involved in what the wordproducing basis denotes (this person's professional activity), for example: a
seamstress, a vocalist, a lecturer, an actor, or a musician. b) A person who
performs a certain action at a specific time, such as a singer singing or the person
who sings (not the singer), a learner studying, a speaker speaking or the person
speaking (at the time), a player playing or the person who plays, etc. c) A person
who possesses a trait, a sign, or the capacity to carry out the action suggested by
37
the basis. Compare the following sentences' uses of the word swimmer, for
instance: He is a competent swimmer; Not is not. I'm not very good at swimming.
A noun with the suffix -er frequently has all three meanings (polysemy), as in the
case of player. 1) The performer; 2) The one who is playing; 3) a player (someone
who is skilled at playing); speaker Speaker is referred to as 1) speaker, 2) speaking,
3) speaker. In these situations, the context dictates which needed value should be
used.
Addendum - her The French legal and administrative terms donee receiving a
gift, appellee accused, defendant, assignee authorized (lit., appointed), presentee
candidate (for position), person introduced to court, and donee receiving a gift are
a few examples of terms with the suffix -ee that were first used in English. In the
future, a number of new words were created in England by analogy with such
phrases. Along with verb stems of Romance origin, Germanic verb stems also
started to be joined by the suffix - her. As an illustration, consider the word drawee
(from the verb to draw). The suffix - ee carries the passive meaning of the person,
that is, the object of the action indicated by the verb stem, in contrast to - er and or which express the meaning of the active actor. Depending on what is added after
the verb stem from which the new word is generated, this object of action may be
direct or indirect. For instance, an employee is someone who is recruited, an
examinee is someone who is being examined, a detainee is someone who is being
kept in custody, a trainee is someone who is being trained, an addressee is
someone who is being contacted, and a dedicatee is someone to whom something
is dedicated. The suffix has not been utilized much in English as a word-forming
component. The fact that there are so few semantic classes of verbal stems that can
be coupled with this suffix is the fundamental cause of the low productivity. It is
united into one semantic class with the verbal stems from which nouns are formed:
verbs with the meaning "to transfer, hand over, or entrust something to someone"
that are connected to legal and administrative principles." For example: to devise
bequeath (real estate) (cf. devisee heir (of real estate); to transfer to transfer
38
(property, etc.) (cf. trsansferee a person to whom something or the right to
something is transferred); to trust trust, entrust, entrust care (cf. trustee a person
who is entrusted, entrusted with management; trustee, guardian); to legate
bequeath (cf. legatee heir); to promise to promise (cf. promisee a person to whom a
promise is made); to revenge revenge (cf. revengee the one who is being avenged);
to say to speak (cf. say her the one who is told); to examine examine, investigate;
interrogate (cf. appointee authorized; representative; assignee) to evacuate (cf.
evacuee one who is being evacuated, evacuated). As a result, the English language
has adopted the French second participle suffix as a noun suffix with the meaning
of the person who is the subject of the action. The passive meaning of this suffix,
which developed through time from the passive meaning of participles adopted
from French and apparently influenced by the meanings of the suffixes - er and or, occasionally started to give way to a more broad agentive sense. As a result,
there are several neoplasms with the suffix "ee," which denotes an active figure, in
contemporary English. For instance, a devotee is someone who is completely
committed to a cause; an enthusiast of his work; a holy man; or a fanatic. Absentee
is someone who is absent or diverting from something. Despite being ineffective,
the suffix "-hers" occasionally results in neoplasms. For instance, telephonee is
someone who receives a phone call; quizzee is someone who does a survey;
conscript; amputee is someone who has had a limb amputated; and separatee is
someone who has been demobilized.
add-on -ist The suffix - ist (F. - iste, L. - ista, Gr. - istes) was further
developed after being taken by the English language as a word-forming element.
Therefore, it can currently be found in neoplasms as well as in several words that
were derived from Romance languages. Nouns are created from nominal stems in
Romance languages. In English, he kept this trait. Currently, it can link the stems
of both nouns and adjectives, though the latter situation is uncommon. The wordforming suffix "ist" conveys the idea of an active individual. But the suffix - ist
39
reflects different nuances of the fundamental meaning depending on the meaning
of the generating stems.
It can be used in conjunction with the following semantic stem classes: Toolrelated nouns (such as those for machines, musical instruments, etc.). In these
situations, the suffix - ist designates a person whose actions are associated with the
topic denoted by the base. For instance, a car (cf. automobilist motorist), a machine
(cf. machinist machinist), a motor (cf. motorist minder), and a harp (cf. harpist
harpist); Guitar (see guitarist guitarist), accordion (see accordionist accordionist),
and violin (see violinist violinist) are examples of instruments. Nouns indicating
the names of different fields of human endeavor (science, culture, literature, art,
etc.). The suffix - ist expresses the connotation of a person employed in the
profession indicated by the producing base when combined with similar bases. For
instance, geology (see geologist geologist), technology (see technology
technologist), and biology (see biology technologist). 3) Nouns designating the
names of historical figures, writers of various theories, teachings, scientific
directions, points of view, etc. The prefix - ist indicates adherents of various
teachings, ideologies, ideological currents, scientific orientations, viewpoints, etc.
when used in conjunction with them. As an illustration, consider the following:
Pushkin Pushkin (cf. Pushkinist Pushkinist); Darwin Darwin (cf. Darwinist
Darwinist); Lenin Lenin (cf. Leninist Leninist); Marx Marx (cf. Leninist Leninist).
4) Words that signify currents in science and politics. The suffix -ist signifies a
supporter, a follower of these currents, or directions when combined with the roots
of this semantic class. For instance, communism (also known as communist
communist), socialism (also known as socialist communist), materialism (also
known as materialist materialist), defeatism (also known as defeatist defeatist),
revisionism (also known as revisionist revisionist), and pacifism (also known as
pacifist pacifist) are all examples of communism. The suffix -ism is typically
added to the nouns in this semantic class as a distinguishing quality. As was
already mentioned, adjectives can also be coupled with the suffix -ist. Adjectives
40
ending in -al serve as the producing stems of these forms. They typically convey
membership in the political or scientific movement mentioned in the premise. As
an illustration, consider the following terms: natural natural, natural (cf. naturalist
naturalist); controversial controversial, debatable (cf. controversialist debater,
polemicist); transcendental transcendental (cf. transcendentalist advocate of
transcendental
philosophy);
conversational
conversational,
talkative
(cf.
conversationalist master of conversation, interesting interlocutor); personal
personal, individual (cf. individualist individualist), etc. In contemporary English,
the prefix -ist is active and useful. Neoplasms like manicurist manicurist,
behaviorist behaviorist, columnist columnist, feuilletonist, etc. serve as proof of
this.
The suffix The sole original suffix of abstract nouns that still has the power to
produce words and maintain its grammatical abstraction is -ness, which was
productive even in Old English. While in Old English it was only combined with
adjectives and adjectivized second participles expressing a state, condition, or
quality, -ness has become so widely used over the course of its development that it
is now used to create abstract nouns from other parts of speech, even whole
phrases used attributively, in addition to adjectives. The suffix -ness communicates
the idea of a property, quality, state, or attribute that has been abstracted from the
subject in modern English by combining the stems of several adjectives and other
parts of speech that are used as attributes. As an illustration, consider the following
traits:
bashfulness,
comeliness,
timidity,
prettiness,
blindness,
effectiveness,
blindness,
awareness,
brilliance,
giftedness,
aliveness,
sensitivity,
estrangement, etc.
The ending "-ness" is typically added to root adjectives. As an illustration,
consider the following adjectives: wildness, whiteness, pallor, raw melancholy,
tenderness, sore sensitivity, redness, and richness. Suf. - ness can connect
derivatives mostly with the following suffixes: y, fill, ous, ive, ed, ish, ward, less.
Ary (-ory), Ant, and Worthiness. The suffix -ness can be used with both native and
41
borrowed adjectives; its use is unaffected by the origin of an adjective. As an
illustration, consider the following: a) from the original foundations: narrowness
narrowness, limitedness; nearness; naughtiness depravity, disobedience; and b)
from the Romanesque foundations: politeness - politeness, good breeding;
rancidness rancidity; humaneness humanity, kindness, humanity. The abundance of
utterly useful affixes in contemporary English is responsible for the suffix -ness. Its
ability to create words like Spanishness (the state, condition, or quality of being
Spanish), half-awakeness (the state of being half-awake), worthwhileness (the state
of being worthwhile), and outpouring-ness (the state, condition, or quality of being
outpouring) are examples of this.
Conclusion of chapter I. Word abbreviations (lexical abbreviations) and
graphic abbreviations (graphic abbreviations) should be distinguished. Symbols are
used in place of words and phrases in graphic abbreviations. They are equivalent to
full-base words and phrases in oral speech. The initial letters of word stems and
words, the first and last letters of a word, or a group of consonants can all be used
as graphic abbreviations. As an illustration, consider the following terms: Gen.
(General), Col. (Colonel), UK (United Kingdom), RAF (Royal Air Force), Ky
(Kentucky), rkt (rocket), and gvt (government). Numerous graphic abbreviations
are shortenings of Latin words, such as exempli gratia (exempli gratia), id est (i.e.
), pound sterling (libra), and versus (against) (in court, sport). Contrary to Russian,
abbreviations can end in vowels in English. Examples include Ave (for Avenue),
Usu (for Usual), Fri (for Friday), and Colo (for Colorado).
Symbolic abbreviations can change into words. This occurs when graphic
abbreviations start to appear alongside words in oral speech. Thus, the terms MP
(from member of Parliament), GI (from government issue), and VC (from Victoria
Cross), which refers to the highest military decoration bestowed by the British
Empire, emerged. Like regular words, words formed from graphic abbreviations
can serve as the foundation for new formations. For instance, the verb to emce is
derived from the noun MS, which was originally a graphic abbreviation of the
42
phrase master of ceremonies entertainer; manager; and presenter of the program.
This verb denotes the person who hosts an event and serves as its host. There are
many abbreviations, which is a characteristic of modern English. The names of
government organizations and positions are frequently abbreviated. (F.O. - Foreign
Office, S.O. - Colonial Office, PM - Prime-Minister); news agencies and
broadcasters (AP - Associated Press; UPI - United Press Informational; USIA United States Information Agency; BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation; ABC
- American Broadcasting Corporation; CBS - Columbia Broadcasting System;
NBC - National Broadcasting Company); military blocs (NATO - North Atlantic
Treaty Organization; SEATO - South East Asia Treaty Organization), air transport
agencies (BOAC - British Overseas Airways Corporation; TWA - Trains-World
Airlines). Many abbreviations are sporadic constructions that can only be
understood within the context of the text in question. When such acronyms first
appear, they are typically defined in the text.
43
CHAPTER II. MAIN PROBLEMS OF COGNITIVEPRAGMATIC PARADIGMA
2.1. Cognitive-pragmatic paradigm in modern linguistics
As is known, modern linguistics is characterized by a variety of paradigms,
scientific schools and approaches. In this regard, many scientists assess the future
of linguistics rather skeptically. At the same time, the need for a new megaparadigm, which would synthesize all the advantages of existing schools and
trends, is becoming increasingly recognized [Zabotkina, 1991]. For this reason, it
should be noted that modern linguistics is characterized by polyparadigmism: there
is a simultaneous coexistence and development of several leading paradigms of
knowledge. However, despite all the fragmentation and diversity of different trends
and schools, there is an obvious tendency towards convergence of the two main
paradigms of recent decades - communicative-pragmatic and cognitive (compare
the term "cognitive-discursive paradigm" proposed by E.S. Kubryakova) . A single
arch-paradigm is being formed (the term of Yu.S. Stepanov; compare with the term
of E.S. Kubryakova - “megapara-digma”).
Following E.S. Kubryakova, Yu.S. Stepanov, T.M. Nikolaeva, we believe that
the basis of the cognitive-pragmatic paradigm is anthropocentricity. As you know,
the movement of linguistics in recent decades has gone in the direction of the
question "How does language connect a person with Reality?" to the question of
"How does language connect Man with reality?" [Nikolaeva, 1991].
The cognitive component of the megaparadigm focuses on numerous
problems associated with obtaining, processing, storing, extracting knowledge
related to its accumulation and systematization, its growth, to all procedures that
characterize the use of knowledge in a person's behavior, and most importantly, his
thinking and communication processes [Kubryakova, 1997]. Accordingly, the
activity of specialists in the field of cognitive science is associated with the
formulation and solution of a range of various problems related to the work of
consciousness and the creation of mental models of the world, a wide range of
44
mental, mental processes, human intellect and mind, the design of systems that
provide various kinds of cognitive or mental acts, etc. Often, the global task of
cognitive science is seen as “understanding how a person with his relatively
limited abilities is able to process, transform and transform huge amounts of
knowledge in extremely limited periods of time [Petrov, 1987].
Pragma-linguistics made a significant contribution to the development of the
new mega-paradigm. Within the framework of the pragmatic component of the
mega-paradigm, the main attention is paid to the study of the personality of the
speaker, who chooses a certain linguistic unit in accordance with the parameters of
the context in order to achieve the desired impact on the listener. In other words,
the pragmalinguist should focus on the study of the three actions of the speaker in
the process of communication: choice, use, and impact on the listener. All three
actions are closely interconnected and usually occur simultaneously. However, the
most important member of the triad is choice. It is on the choice that the linguistic
personality of the speaker is most clearly manifested, which, together with the
listener, is the prima motores of any linguistic operation [Zabotkina, 1991].
The fusion of the two approaches suggests that the concepts of the cognitive
state of native speakers, context (including the micro- and macrostructures of the
text, socio-cultural characteristics of the context), the act of use (including
planning and discourse management strategies) are interconnected and jointly "
work" to explain the general phenomenon of understanding and generating
language.
2.2. Categorization is the most important cognitive operation
One of the key concepts of the cognitive approach is the concept of
categorization. Categorization is the ability to classify phenomena, distribute them
into different classes, categories and categories, it indicates that a person in the
perception of the world judges the identity of some objects to others, their
similarity or, on the contrary, difference - [Kubryakovag 1997].
There are several points of view on the problem of categorization. So,
45
nominalists believe that the similarity of things and their belonging to the
same category is determined by the name and its ability to relate to the class of
objects. Nominalists are opposed by scientists who believe that the similarity or
commonality of things exists in "nature" regardless of language and that words
reflect this commonality, naming in one word that which is ontologically
connected. This is the position of the realists. Finally, according to conceptualists,
the use of one name for a series of objects is mediated for them by a common
conceptual basis, that is, the ability to represent each object of one series with a
single mental representation, the same concept. But, as J. Taylor points out,
conceptualism is also characterized by either a nominalistic or realistic orientation:
after all, it can be argued that a single concept for a series of objects either appears
as a result of applying the same name to them, or, on the contrary, that such a
concept arises - as a result of the formation of similar mental representations, that
is, not in acts of naming, but in acts of perceiving the world and reflecting the
actual state of affairs [Kubryakova, 1997].
With the development of the cognitive approach, views on the essence of the
categorization process were subjected to a radical revision. Although they are
based on a new understanding of the category and, therefore, the established
concepts emanating from the interpretation of the category in the Aristotelian spirit
are disputed, non-identical aspects and ways of its implementation turn out to be
important for a different understanding of the categorization process itself. So,
according to T. Givon, a new explanation of the principles of categorization of the
world first appears in Ch. Pierce, and it is connected precisely with the
consideration of linguistic categories. Peirce's understanding of linguistic signs as
signs of three types with the absence of strict boundaries between these classes
already introduces the idea of classification as a way to single out individual points
in the form of units, moreover, to assert the existence of not quite “pure”
categories. Later developed by R. Jacobson, this doctrine of signs clearly revealed
different types of possible relations of a sign to objects outside the sign (to the
46
referents of the sign) and, most importantly, “different degrees of signness”
[Stepanov, 1971]. The selection of classes of signs-symbols, signs-indexes and
iconic signs demonstrated a new approach to the category of signs in general: it
was also demonstrated, in particular, that “each specific symbolic act can contain
combinations of all three types of relations ( iconic, arbitrary, indexical) ...” [Bates,
1984]. The important thing in this approach is that the classes are not rigidly
opposed to each other, that in the same category (sign) the criterial properties of
the units included in it diverge and do not coincide (signs of three types have
different criteria) and that, thus, itself a category turns out to be an association or a
set of units with non-identical properties and, at the same time, a grouping of units
characterized by a certain common property - to be a representative of something
outside the sign [Kubryakova, 1997].
Categorization is closely related to such a phenomenon as conceptualization.
world, and leads to the question of how the process of categorization relates to
the selection of individual concepts or their stable associations, i.e., proIn other words, what is the difference between classification processes,
categorization processes and, finally, conceptualization processes. Apparently, this
difference exists and is especially clearly manifested in ontogeny. Learning Cogni
The active development of the child demonstrates, as L.S. Vygotsky showed,
that the process of forming concepts (concepts) goes through different qualitative
stages, at one of which the child creates poorly ordered “heaps” - syncretes, at the
other - generalizations of homogeneous objects - complexes, etc. d. until he forms
genuine concepts. Correlating this process with different types of thinking, L.S.
Vygotsky opened a new way of understanding the process of categorization with
the distinction in this fundamental process of methods for solving classification
problems depending on the age of the child, in contrast to the motives and reasons
for the behavior of a new object under a known him a category [KSKT, 1996].
A significant contribution to the development of the theory of categorization
was made by E. Roche, who made observations about prototypes as the best
47
examples of categorization and, most importantly, about the levels of
categorization with the allocation of the base level. categorization as central to
many types of cognitive activity level.
Four types of models can be used to describe the categorization process.
Propositional models isolate elements, give their characteristics and indicate
the connections between them. Much of the structure of our knowledge is in the
form of propositional models.
Schematic models of images are specific schematic representations of images,
such as trajectories, long thin shapes, or receptacles.
Metaphorical models are models of transition from propositional * models, or
schematic models of images, of one area to the corresponding
common structure of another area.
Metonymic models are models of one or more of the types described above,
supplemented by an indication of the functions performed by one element in
relation to another. Such models can characterize the basic structure, indicate what
its central members are, and demonstrate connections in internal chains [Lakoff,
1999]. Thus, categorization is a global process, which covered all aspects of human
activity and without which it is impossible for man to master the world around
him.
2.3. Conceptualization of linguistic phenomena. Concept as a base :
cognitive entity
Conceptualization is one of the most important processes of human cognitive
activity, which consists in comprehending the information coming to him and
leading to the formation of concepts, conceptual structures and the entire
conceptual system in the human brain (psyche). Conceptualization is often viewed
as a process of knowledge structuring that is “cross-cutting” for different forms of
cognition and the emergence of different structures of knowledge representation
from certain minimal conceptual units. Each individual act of conceptualization is
48
an example of solving a problem, and the mechanisms of inference, obtaining
output data (inference) and other logical operations are involved in it.
A number of such prominent scientists as R.Jackendoff, F.Clix, J.Fodor,
R.ILavilenis, E.S.Kubryakova, G.Frege, N.V.Vidineev, M.Richard, R.Laneker and
etc. As is known, the concept is the operational content unit of the conceptual
system. It corresponds to the idea of those meanings that a person operates in the
process of thinking and which reflect the content of experience and knowledge, the
content of the results of all human activity and the processes of cognition of the
world in the form of "quanta" of knowledge.
R. Jackendoff offers his vision of the conceptual structure. He believes that
the complete set of concepts in the human mind is determined by combinatorial
principles, the so-called "Conceptual well-formedness rules". In turn, these
"Conceptual well-formedness rules" allow concepts to form in the human brain.
Schematically it looks like this:
Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules
linguistic elements conceptual architecture awareness and action inference rules
The scientist identifies a semantic structure with a conceptual structure, the
innate rules for the formation of which include a vocabulary of primitive
conceptual categories, or "semantic parts of speech" such as Thing (Object), Event,
State, Action, Place, Path, Property and Quantity. These basic categories,
according to certain rules, can be expanded into more complex expressions. In his
opinion, the meaning of a linguistic expression is contained in internal
representations at the level of the conceptual structure. He proposes to define such
an approach by the term "conceptual semantics". Conceptual semantics involves a
dictionary approach to the meaning of a word, according to which words belong to
syntactic categories with rigid boundaries [Jackendoff, 1989].
Z. Kharitonchik shares the opinion of R. Jackendoff. She believes that the
lexical meaning is nothing more than a unit of conceptual structure, the result of
some "idealization" or conceptualization of the situation, in which only certain
49
aspects of the scene are used to represent the whole and abstracting, or ignoring
other aspects [ Kharitonchik, 1992].
The nature of concepts is also considered from the point of view of individual
representations. So, S.A. Askoldov in his article “The Concept and the Word”
writes: “... Concepts are individual representations, which only in some features
and signs are given only general significance.” “Undoubtedly,” he continues
further, “some of our concepts are nothing but schematic representations, i.e.
representations devoid of certain specific details, for example, “a person walking
down the street” is seen or represents without a clear distinction between height,
face, and even gender” [Askoldov, 1992].
In connection with the above, the question arises: can the concept O .
represent a certain deep meaning, be a kind of folded semantic structure of the text,
which is the embodiment of a certain intention?
Some scientists believe that it can. So, V.V. Krasnykh sees the solution in the
following. He proposes his own scheme of the “generation process” of the concept
[Krasnykh, 1998]. It looks like this: & Situation
Motive Intention (as the embodiment of a motive)
Concept (as the embodiment of intention)
M. Richard looks at this problem in his own way, who considers concepts as
basic cognitive entities that make it possible to associate meaning with the word
used [Richard, 1998]. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the concept is
not identified with the concept as some set of necessary and sufficient features that
meet the requirements of truth and are devoid of any emotional and evaluative
nuances due to their abstraction [Zalevskaya, 1999]. Important clarifications on
this subject are made by Yu.S. Stepanov, who interprets the concept as a "bundle"
of representations, concepts, knowledge, associations, experiences that accompany
the word; at the same time, it is clarified that the complex structure of the concept
includes both what belongs to the structure of the concept and what makes it a fact
of culture [Stepanov, 1997].
50
J. Lakoff supports and develops M. Johnson's idea that conceptual structures
develop in part from what is called "image- schemes”, in other words, from the
basic structures created as a result of that we interact with the physical world,
taking as data our bodily existence and the physical events of the world in which
we live. (0 According to M. Johnson, “... an image-scheme is a repetitive dynamic
pattern of our perceptual processes and our motor programs, which gives
coherence and structure to our experience” [Johnson, 1987]. Lakoff explains his
vision with the example of the metaphor "CLASSICAL CATEGORIES are
CONTAINERS". In addition to image-schemes, Lakoff stresses the importance of
another type of concepts that matter to us because of their role in the bodily
experience; we are talking about basic-level concepts because the level of
complexity at which they can be categorized is intermediate in the hierarchy from
general to specific. Lakoff links conceptualization with the theory of cognitive
models. Taking into account Faconnier's theory, he writes that the theory of
cognitive models includes: (a) mental spaces and (b) cognitive models structuring
these spaces. Mental space is the environment of conceptualization and thinking.
Thus, any concrete state of affairs, which is in the process of formation, in our
conceptualization corresponds to a mental space. He refers to mental spaces, for
example, such entities:
- the reality directly given to us - as we understand it;
- fictional situations, situations depicted in paintings, presented in films, etc .;
.
- past or future situations - as we understand them;
— hypothetical situations;
- the sphere of abstract categories, for example, the area of general concepts
(here
such entities as economics, politics, physics), the field of mathematical
concepts, etc. [Lakoff, 1990]. .
51
Thus, in the theory of cognitive models, mental spaces ■ replace possible
worlds and situations. They are similar to possible worlds in that they can be seen
as reflections of our understanding of hypothetical and fictional situations.
Connectors occupying an intermediate position between spaces play the role of
"alternative relations" in the semantics of possible worlds, although they differ
from the latter in a number of parameters. Spaces are similar to situations of
situational semantics in their fragmentation: they do not require the mandatory
representation of everything that exists in the world. The main difference between
mental spaces is that they are essentially conceptual. Spaces have no ontological
status outside of thought and hence play no role in objectivist semantics. Mental
space, unlike situations or possible worlds, is not one of those entities that can be
compared with the real world or part of it as an example.
Exploring the problems of the concept, we can conclude that concepts allow
you to store knowledge about the world and turn out to be the building blocks of a
conceptual system, contribute to the processing of subjective experience by
summing up information under certain categories and classes developed by society.
In this regard, the opinion of V. Telia is convincing that a concept is always
knowledge structured into a frame, which means that it reflects not just the
essential features of an object, but all those that in a given language community are
filled with knowledge about the essence. It follows from this that the concept must
receive a cultural and national "registration". As R.M. Frumkin, “knowledge has
long been considered as a socio-cultural and psychological phenomenon. The role
of natural language as the main form of fixing our knowledge about the world, as
well as the source of studying this knowledge itself, was realized relatively
recently ... It is as a result of the interaction of linguistics with philosophy (the
author means that direction of "philosophizing", which is presented in the works of
Z. Vendler, V. V. Petrov), the science of knowledge, psychology and cultural
anthropology in linguistic semantics, the terms “concept”, “category”, “proto-
52
type". There was also a form of scientific research, called conceptual ana-. lysis”
[Frumkina, 2001].
Following A.Chenki, we believe that both image-schematic concepts (with
their meaningful configurations) and base-level concepts have an internal structure
and therefore contrast with the point of view that the semantic structure consists of
primitives. “These two types of concepts,” he writes, “cannot be considered as
elementary building blocks, nor is it claimed that there is a universal fixed set of
such concepts” [Chenki, 1989].
The concept is a socio-cultural phenomenon. According to A. Vezhbitskaya,
the concept is “an object from the “Ideal” world, having a name and reflecting
certain culturally conditioned ideas of a person about the “Reality” world. The very
same reality, A. Vezhbitskaya believes, is given to us in thinking (not in
perception!) It is through language, and not directly. The closeness of Wierzbicka's
approach to Humboldt's ideas is obvious.
It is extremely important to consider the concept from the point of view. I its
deep structure. So, V.N. Teliya considers the ratio of the “triad” of the semantic
triangle “concept - ■ prototype (denotation) - reality from the world“ Reality ”,
where by the concept she understands everything that we know about the object, in
all extensions of this knowledge. “The concept is ontologically preceded by
categorization, which creates a typical image and forms a “prototype” (it is the
Gestalt structure). This prototype corresponds in name to what we called, and
reality is what the object in the world of "Reality" is for us, i.e. what the object is
for us (and, more broadly, for all those who have similar prototypes and concepts)”
[Telia, 1996].
Thus, conceptual analysis is research for which the concept is the object of
analysis. The meaning of conceptual analysis is to trace the path of knowing the
meaning of the concept and write the result in a formalized, semantic language.
Essentially, this means knowing the concept, i.e. concept is knowledge about an
object from the world "Reality", translated into knowledge of an object in the
53
world "Ideal". There is no doubt that the most important concepts are encoded in
the language. Many scientists also believe that the concepts central to the human
psyche are reflected in the grammar of languages, and grammatical categorization
creates that conceptual grid, that framework for distributing all the conceptual
material that is expressed lexically. Consequently, all cognitive activity of a person
(cognition) can be considered as developing the ability to navigate in there, and
this activity is associated with the need to identify and distinguish objects:
concepts arise to provide operations of this kind.
The next paragraph touches on one of the most important forms of
conceptualization of reality: it will be about cognitive metaphor.
2.4. Cognitive metaphor as one of the forms of conceptualization. ;
reality'
Cognitive metaphor is one of the forms of conceptualization that expresses
and forms new concepts and without which it is impossible to obtain new
knowledge [Telia, 1988; McCormack, 1990]. According to its source, the cognitive
metaphor is responsible for the ability of a person to capture and create similarities
between different individuals and classes of objects [Arutyunova, 1990].
J. Lakoff and M. Johnson define the essence of metaphor as the
comprehension and experience of phenomena of one kind in terms of phenomena
of another kind [Lakoff, Johnson, 1990]. This determines the greater informational
and emotional capacity of the metaphor both as a means of learning new things and
as a means of artistic influence [Zalevskaya, 1999]. Probably, the purely
genetically cognitive aspect comes to the fore, since for a person it is first of all
important to include the perceived object in his picture of the world. Obviously, in
this case, the metaphorical image arises spontaneously, unconsciously [Zalevskaya,
1999].
As is known, metaphor refers not to separate isolated objects, but to complex
mental spaces (areas of sensory and social experience). In this regard, the question
arises: how in the processes of cognition do these complex, directly unobservable
54
mental spaces correlate with simpler or specifically observable mental spaces? (for
example, when human emotions are compared with fire, the sphere of politics and
the sphere of economics - with games, etc.). In such metaphorical representations,
the conceptualization of the observed mental space is transferred to the directly
unobservable, which in this process is conceptualized and included in the general
conceptual system of a given linguistic community. At the same time, one and the
same mental space can be represented by means of one or several conceptual
metaphors [Kubryakova, 1999].
In fairness, it should be noted that in linguistically related studies in the field
of psychology, anthropology, etc., universal categories that generate metaphors
have been singled out more than once [Gak, 1998]. Thus, Ulman notes three
universal types of metaphorization: anthropomorphism, transfer from the concrete
to the abstract, and synesthesia [Ulman, 1970]. J.Matore explored the spatial
metaphor in French [Master, 1962]. Other researchers identified geographic
metaphors (including spatial), meteorological, biomorphic (anthropomorphic,
zoomorphic, botanical), technical, sociomorphic, etc.
M. Minsky introduces into his system analogies based on the key metaphor.
In his opinion, such analogies sometimes give us the opportunity to see an object
or idea as if “in the light” of another object or idea, which allows us to apply
knowledge and experience acquired in one area to solve problems in another area.
This is how knowledge is spread from one scientific paradigm to another. Thus, we
are more and more accustomed to consider gases and liquids as collections of
particles, particles as waves, and waves as surfaces of expanding spheres [Minskii,
1968]. Metaphor, according to Minsky, contributes to the formation of
unpredictable inter-frame connections that have great heuristic power. So, the key
metaphors attach the image of one fragment of reality to its other fragment. They
provide its conceptualization by analogy with the already established system of
concepts.
55
Earl McCormack, in his famous article "The Theory of Metaphor", noted that
in order to explain metaphor, one must assume the existence of deep structures of
the human mind as a device that generates. language. In his opinion, thanks to
certain hierarchically organized operations, the human mind compares semantic
concepts that are largely incomparable, which is the reason for the emergence of
metaphora. Metaphor, he reflects further, presupposes a certain similarity between
the properties of its semantic referents, inasmuch as it must be intelligible, and, on
the other hand, a dissimilarity between them, since the metaphor designed to create
some new meaning, that is, to have suggestiveness. The scientist placed this
hierarchy of ideal constructions on two levels of deep structures: semantic and
cognitive. These levels are not mutually exclusive; they are postulated to
demonstrate his belief that the cognitive process underlies the semantic process.
McCormack does not identify these two processes, because he allows the existence
of non-verbal cognitive functions, such as those that allow artists to express their
feelings and ideas without resorting to words [McCormack, 1990]. Further, he
postulates three levels of explanation of the constructs of the cognitive process that
generates the metaphor: level 1) superficial (phantom language; level 2) semantics
and syntax; level 3) knowledge. These ie- 'rarchic levels can also be considered as
heuristic mechanisms that contribute to the understanding of the cognitive process
that creates a metaphor. The thought process represented in the ideal constructions
by these three levels relates them to each other in the production of metaphors and
by means of a more general process, which McCormack calls "the process of
knowing". Seen from within, metaphors function as cognitive processes by which,
according to McCormack, we deepen our understanding of the world and create
new hypotheses. Viewed from the outside, they function as mediators between the
human mind and culture. New metaphors change the everyday language we use
and at the same time change the way we perceive and comprehend the world. The
scientist notes that the conceptual process that generates a metaphor recognizes
both similar properties of referents, on which the analogy is based, and dissimilar
56
ones, on which the semantic anomaly is built. Degree similarities and
dissimilarities determines the truth value of the metaphor. According to him
In my opinion, metaphor can be described as a process in two senses:
1) as a cognitive process expressing (express) and forming (suggest) new
concepts;
2) and as a cultural process through which language itself changes.
VN Teliya developed her theory of cognitive metaphor. The essence of her
theory is that metaphorization is accompanied by interspersing into a new concept
of knowledge about an already known and named object, displayed in the meaning
of a rethought name, which leaves traces in a metaphorical meaning, which, in
turn, “weaves” into the picture. world expressed by language. Metaphor is also
capable of creating new concepts in the field of designation of “non-objective”
reality. Such a metaphor can be considered a hypothetical-cognitive model,
meaning its main function is the creation of new concepts [Teliya, 1996]. If in an
identifying metaphor the mode of fictitiousness is reduced in its product to a
comparison revealed at the figurative-associative level (the bow of a ship is like the
nose of a man, etc.), then in a conceptual metaphor this mode, having played its
synthesizing role, tends to annihilation. lation. The principle of fictitiousness,
which underlies such a metaphor, prevents the meaning of the name from
performing its own nominative function, so the living image in such a name is
erased, and the meaning tends to generalize [Arutyunova, 1976]. The conceptual
metaphor creates a new "ideal" object, and with it fills in the gaps in the
nominative inventory. For example, knowing one's own worth is not the same as
appreciating oneself, but includes the reflection of the individual over his own "I"
[Telia, 1996].
Speaking about the complex process of metaphorization, it is necessary to
emphasize the fact that a metaphor is a relationship between two uses (meanings)
of a word. VG Gak noted that the semantic types of metaphor are determined by
the original meaning and the new meaning of the word. The analysis of the types
57
of metaphorical transfers can be studied on the material of metaphors of any
semantic types - both on living and on etymological metaphors. When considering
the types of metaphor, one should distinguish between transfers of general
semantic categories and transfers of individual words. Transfers are reflected in the
etymology of the word, in the polysemy of words, in phraseological phrases and in
word usage [Gak, 1998].
It is necessary to distinguish between the types of metaphors that define
analogies and associations between different systems of concepts and generate
particular metaphors [KSKT, 1996]:
1. Structural metaphors conceptualize separate areas by transferring to them
the structuring of another area.
2. Ontological metaphors categorize abstract entities by delineating their
boundaries in space.
3. The metaphor "channel of communication / transmission of information"
represents the process communication as a movement of meanings that “fill”
semantic expressions (receptacles) along a “channel” connecting the speaker and
the listener.
4. Orientational metaphors structure several areas and set a common
conceptualization system for them; they are mainly related to orientation in space,
with oppositions such as "up-down", "inside-outside", "deep-shallow", etc.
5. The metaphor "container" represents the meanings as "filling containers" specific language units.
6. The metaphor "construction" represents the meaning of large speech works
as a "construction" from smaller meanings.
Interest in metaphor contributed to the formation of cognitive science, which
is engaged in the study of different aspects of human consciousness. According to
Arutyunova, it is based on the assumption that human cognitive structures
(perception, language, thinking, memory, action) are inextricably linked within one
common task - the implementation of the process owls of assimilation, processing
58
and transformation of knowledge, which, in fact, determine the essence of the
human mind [Arutyunova, 1990]. They began to see the metaphor as the key to
understanding the foundations of thinking and the processes of creating not only a
nationally specific vision of the world, but also its universal image. Metaphor thus
strengthened the connection with logic, on the one hand, and mythology, on the
other.
Thus, the production of metaphors is not just a linguistic phenomenon that
occurs at the surface level of language; it originates in a deeper cognitive process
of a creative nature, opening up new possibilities for the development of meanings.
The creator of viable metaphors, in one way or another, combines seemingly
unrelated concepts to bring to life a new mobile concept that reveals the
similarities between some of its features and exposes the differences between
others. between some of my traits and revealing differences between others.
2.5. Pragmatics of linguistic phenomena
Recently, the pragmatic aspect of the language has attracted much attention
of linguists and philosophers. The word "pragmatics", akin to the word practice,
comes from the Greek pragma - action, deed-. Pragmatics describes the facts of
language (as well as elements of sign systems in general) in the aspect of human
activity. She studies the language in terms of its use [Gak, 1998].
On the one hand, the boundaries of pragmatics as one of the three parts of
semiotics were initially determined by its proximity within this science to
semantics, and on the other, by syntactics. Since syntactics was understood as the
sphere of internal relations between signs, and semantics - as the sphere of
relations between signs and what they designate - the external world and the inner
world of a person - then the sphere of relations between signs and those who use
signs remained to the lot of pragmatics. - speaking, writing, listening, reading.
Pragmatics deals with the choice of language means from the available repertoire
for the best expression of one's thought or one's feeling, the expression of the most
accurate or most beautiful, or the most appropriate to the circumstances, or, finally,
59
for the most successful lie; for the best impact on the listener and reader - in order
to convince him or excite him, or touch him, or make him laugh, or mislead, etc.
Pragmatics describes empirically how a person behaves, solving these problems for
himself in his practical use of the language, and then theoretically generalizing
these observations. The foundations of pragmatics lie in a more general property of
the language, penetrating all its aspects - in its subjectivity [Stepanov, 1997].
The concept of context is one of the central ones in pragmalinguistics. It
includes various aspects: verbal and non-verbal, historical and cultural,
psychological, social, etc. In particular, the concept of context is realized in the
form of a discourse as a certain sequence of speech acts linked into global and
local text structures in the form of “pho-new meaning about the world”, organized
by means of frames, scenarios stored in the semantic memory of the individual
[Petrov, 1987].
and The idea of the importance of the context of language use has also found
its embodiment through such an extension of it, when the concept of context
includes the cognitive state of native speakers. Indeed, linguistic expressions do
not indicate by themselves - the act of reference is always carried out by specific
people. And, if we want to identify their referential.
For example, we need to know not only the immediate context of use, but also
many other things, in particular, the needs, desires, feelings and intentions of
native speakers.
Recently, the theory of speech acts has been popular in pragmalinguistics.
One of the supporters of this theory is J. Searle. The author of this theory proposes
to introduce intentional as a fundamental concept a state that expresses a certain
mental orientation of the subject to reality. He discusses such human intentional
states as sensations, beliefs, desires, and intentions, although in principle the
number of primitive intentional states can be large. From a scientist's point of
view, our ability to relate ourselves to the world through intentional states is more
fundamental. Thus, animals that do not have a language and are unable to perform
60
speech acts nevertheless have an intentional state. Language appears as a special
form of development of more primitive forms of intentionality. According to this
approach, the philosophy of language is a branch of the philosophy of mind. Then
the fundamental semantic concepts - such as meaning - are justifiably analyzed in
terms of even more fundamental concepts, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions.
Unlike other variants of this approach (for example, H. Grice), J. Searl discusses
the problem of meaning, using for this purpose * the concept of intentionality.
Conclusion of chapter II.
The review made it possible to postulate the thesis about the coexistence and
development of the leading paradigms of knowledge: communicative-pragmatic
and cognitive. The cognitive component of the mega-paradigm focuses on
numerous problems associated with obtaining, processing, storing, extracting and
operating knowledge, related to its accumulation and systematization, its growth,
to all procedures that characterize the use of knowledge in human behavior, and
most importantly, his thinking and communication processes. Accordingly, the
activity of specialists in the field of cognitive science is associated with the
formulation and solution of a range of various problems related to the work of
consciousness and the creation of mental models of the world, a wide range of
mental, mental processes, human intellect and mind, the design of systems that
provide various kinds of cognitive or mental acts, etc. Often, the global task of
cognitive science is seen as understanding how a person with his relatively limited
abilities is able to process, transform and transform huge amounts of knowledge in
extremely limited periods of time.
Within the framework of the pragmatic component of the mega-paradigm, the
main attention is paid to the study of the personality of the speaker, who chooses a
certain linguistic unit in accordance with the parameters of the context in order to
achieve the desired impact on the listener.
The study of the work is devoted to the most important cognitive operation categorization - led to the conclusion that categorization is one of the key concepts
61
in the descriptive activity of a person, associated with almost all cognitive abilities
and systems in his cognitive apparatus, as well as with the operations performed in
the processes of thinking - comparison, identification, establishment of similarity
and similarity, etc. Kate-horization is a linguistic phenomenon, and its results are
reflected in full-valued vocabulary, and each full-valued word can be considered as
a reflection
zhivaya separately taken category with standing behind it numerous of its
representatives. Categorization is also closely related to such a phenomenon as the
conceptualization of the world. Conceptualization involves dividing the world
around into concepts. Categorization, on the other hand, considers the assignment
of an object to a certain category.
Consideration of the central concept of cognitive science - conceptualization leads us to the conclusion that the conceptual system is a mental level, or a mental
organization, where the totality of all concepts given to the human mind is
concentrated, their ordered unification. Concepts allow you to store knowledge
about the world and turn out to be the building blocks of a conceptual system,
contribute to the processing of subjects.
positive experience by summing up information under certain categories and
classes developed by society.
A review of one of the forms of conceptualization of reality - cognitive
metaphor - shows that metaphor can be described as a process in two senses: 1) as
a cognitive process that expresses and forms new concepts and 2) as a cultural
process through which changes language itself. The metaphor is based on the
assumption that human cognitive structures are inextricably linked within the
framework of one common task - the implementation of the processes of
assimilation, processing and transformation of knowledge, which determine the
essence of the human mind. Consideration of the central concept of pragmatics context - shows that the pragmatic context must be considered in terms of social
62
structures. The social plane is constituted by two lines: horizontal (situational) and
vertical (stratification).
CHAPTER III. COGNITIVE AND PRAGMATIC ANALAYSIS OF
WORD FORMATIONS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
3.1. A brief overview of word formation from structuralism to
cognitivism.
Second-half 20th-century structuralism and English word development Let's
begin with the second half of the 20th century, when G. Marchand's book "The
categories and types of present-day English word-formation" was published
[Marchand 1969], since the topic of our study is the word formation of modern
English. The author's pregenerative, structuralist approach to word production in
this work is primarily analytical and descriptive. In his research, he covered the
system of modern English language derivatives using examples and models
(patterns). He provided the most comprehensive list of synchronously segmented
word model examples and supported their productivity principles. He defines word
production as "such a branch of language science that studies the models by which
the language creates new lexical units, that is, words" [Marchand 1969: 3]. The
task emerging from this theoretical background was successfully handled by G.
Marchand, according to both his contemporaries and researchers of later decades.
Word formation is now founded on the concept of a model and its structure, very
much in the vein of structuralist ideas. "Word-formation pattern" (word-formation
pattern) - the key term of this field of knowledge at that time. The structuralist
approach to English word formation is also presented in the works of L. Bauer and
A Hatcher [Bauer 1983; Hatcher 1960].
“Word formation is formed, exists and functions as an area for modeling
motivated (secondary) names” [Kubryakova 1978: 55]. The majority of the time,
existing words that are supplied in the form of specific samples are used to help
create new terms in the language. A word-formation model, which M.D. Stepanova
defines as "a typical structure with a generalized lexical-categorical content and
63
capable of being filled with different lexical material," is what these samples are
viewed as. (i.e., different lexical bases) in the presence of certain patterns of
compatibility of its elements with each other” [Stepanova 1979: 522].
Representatives of generative grammar start to pay attention to morphology
and word creation in the late 1960s and early 1970s, especially with R. Leese's
"Grammar of English Nominalizations" [Lees 1963] and other works in this vein.
N. Chomsky's work "Remarks on nommalization" (Chomsky 1970) makes note of
the inclusion of morphology in the theory of generative grammars. Wordformation morphology is excluded from the new, revised theory of syntax
presented in this work; word-formation rules should be included into the lexicon.
The writings of M. Halle and M. Aronoff are relevant to the investigation of the
function of word formation in the language system and the formulation of the
standards for its evaluation [Halle 1973; Aronoff 1981]. Word formation is
discussed in general terms in the previous book, "Word formation in generative
grammar," although the author makes a point of highlighting the fact that syntactic
changes and the rules for generating words are not isomorphic. Syntactic and
morphological rules are examples of units with multiple grammatical levels that do
not work with word creation rules. They don't change the "X" of one level into the
equivalent "X" of another level; on the contrary, they add some phonological and
semantic characteristics to "X" and create "Y", which turns out to be an element of
the same linguistic level as "X", but is not its equivalent [Aronoff 1981: 56-57].
This further demonstrates, in the author's view, that word production is a distinct
aspect of grammar from syntactic changes. He attempts to resolve this issue using
a formal method because the generativists have excluded from their study the
language's vocabulary and the laws of word production due to their
transformational irregularity. It is important to separate between the rules for
producing words and the rules for analyzing words since it is challenging to
formalize the meanings of all the words that currently exist in the language. This
idea can no longer be applied to all instances of meaning that deviates from the
64
laws of word formation. "A word-formation rule is logically consistent when the
words created using it have the same meaning as those given to them by the rule's
semantic function. According to Aronoff (1981: 38), a rule is logically consistent if
it can be used to predict the meaning of any term that is generated using it.
However, many terms continue to defy the theory. It may be said that a formula
calculates the meaning of words. The number of derivatives formed in accordance
with the rules can no longer include a term if its meaning does not match the rule
of generation (and the rules are also derivational models, that is, samples for
applying the rule). By examining the classic works of the generative direction,
what conclusions may be made about contemporary views on word-formation
modeling? In their research, scientists aimed to develop ideally tight criteria of
word production that would match to the perfect speaker. They recognized the
openness and limitless generating potential of such laws as the dynamic of the
generative process. It is impossible to deny the existence of such principles in word
production, and generativists properly observed this. They believed that such
dynamism, which is focused on the ideal speaker, could only be produced within
the confines of rigid transformational principles. In this sense, the lexicon's duty
was to serve as a repository for strange, artificially formed terms. However,
linguists had already developed a number of word-formation models for the
English language by this point, demonstrating that the lexicon also contains rules
for the creation of derivative terms in addition to transformational ones. In
actuality, native speakers frequently produce words that do not strictly follow
generative norms. The search for morphological regularities in the lexicon was
prompted by the need to explain such events.
A language evolves continuously and at all levels: the sound system goes
through different modifications, the word's morphological structure changes, and
words and phrases go through semantic changes. The most obvious and palpable
changes take place in the language's lexicon, or in the vocabulary.
65
The ability of modern English to create novel vocabulary units sets it apart.
The vast majority of new formations are produced using a language's wordbuilding techniques and tools. The three primary methods of word construction in
modern English—affixation, conversion, and compounding—are employed and
have been for a long time. However, not all of them are utilized equally, and
different methods contribute differently to the development of words.
The issue of effective word construction is the most important right now. The
majority of new formations are produced via techniques like word formation and
word production.
To a larger extent, the study of effective word-formation processes will help
identify external and internal rules, as well as patterns in the evolution of wordformation processes in the language.
Word-formation techniques and tools perform a variety of functions in the
production of new words. A subfield of linguistics called word formation
(derivatology) examines how words are formed in a language.
Being the science of creating new names as motivated one-word signs of a
language, word formation can be considered as part of onomasiology. It studies
derivatives and compound words in dynamic and static aspects. [34, 25].
A language's word-formation system, the introduction of new word-formation
models of words, changes in existing ones, a rise or decrease in their productivity,
and many other aspects of the word-formation process all contribute to a
language's growth.
According to Eliseeva V.V., the word-formation model demonstrates how a
word is produced in each unique situation and aids in producing words with similar
meanings. Generalizations are included in the idea of word formation as a whole,
grouping various models according to how words are formed.
Modern English has many ways of forming new words, which include word
production,
word
formation,
conversion,
abbreviations,
adjectivization,
66
substantivization, reverse word formation, lexico-semantic method, alternation of
sounds and stress transfer in a word (phonological method), etc. [13,15].
In order to represent new ideas that are continually emerging as a result of the
progress of science, technology, culture, and social interactions, new words are
first and foremost created as a reflection of societal requirements in language. The
most significant issues in lexicology have always been identifying patterns in the
evolution of word-formation processes in the language, enhancing lexicography's
theory and practice, etc.
The creation of new names and secondary units of designation is the essence
of word-formation processes, according to E.S. Kubryakova. Once these names are
words, the term "word formation" is revealed in its literal sense, that is, as the
name of the word-formation process. 24, 356].
In the second sense, the term "word formation" denotes a branch of science
that studies the processes of formation of lexical units [20,8].
As noted by Karashchuk, the primary task of word formation is to investigate
the formal, semantic, genetic, and other patterns and characteristics of the
emergence of new lexical units in the process of language development. This
process serves as a kind of social development barometer that is sensitive to the
smallest changes in the scientific, political, and other facets of society [20,9].
Kubryakova E.S. asserts that pragmatic requirements are what determine a
word's actual definition; the message sender selects the word from the lexical
thesaurus that best captures his or her feelings. If the sender doesn't already have a
word that fits the bill, he frequently changes the existing one or invents a brandnew lexical unit. Instead of being planned in advance by the speaker to add to or
replenish the vocabulary, new lexical units are formed during speech when the
speaker carries out a specific communicative goal. [24,366].
In language, everything is directed towards a specific goal - the expression of
thought. Therefore, the formation of a language can be imagined as the interaction
67
of a spiritual desire to designate the material required by the internal goals of
communication.[31,72].
As a result, the process of creating derivative words is referred to as word
formation, as is the area of linguistics that studies this process. Word formation is
the study of how words are formed as well as their structure, including the parts of
a word and their meanings as well as their positions within a word. The need to
express one's ideas succinctly and unambiguously drives the very creation of new
words. Since newly created words add to the language's vocabulary and because
new words are created based on words already in the language using this
language's models, word formation and lexicology go hand in hand. Studying the
patterns and characteristics of how new lexical units are formed is the primary task
of word formation.
When it becomes necessary to name new objects, to express a slightly
different attitude toward already-known objects, or to characterize them in some
other way, new words (as well as new meanings of words) appear. The action of
the conventional methods of word formation results in the creation of new words
from the existing elements of the language (words, stems, derivational affixes) in
accordance with existing models. For instance, the word D-day (Decimal day),
which was coined in England to prepare for the switch to a new monetary system,
is based on the previously existing words V-day (H-bomb, G-man). The more
recent acronyms OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Producing Countries), SALT
(Strategic Arms Limitation Talks), and VAT (Value Added Tax) follow the
standard pattern, much like the USA and the Air Force. A new acronym, DIA (All
Change to Bicycle), appeared when they started to promote the bicycle at the
height of the energy crisis in the capitalist countries. The sentence's first letters,
SOS (Save our souls - a distress signal at sea), and other letters combine to form
the abbreviation, SNAFU (Situation normal. All fouled up. - an expression popular
in military jargon during the Second World War, the approximate translation of
which is Everything is normal. There is a complete confusion around.). Decode,
68
decipher, demilitarize, demobilize, and decompose are verb structures that were
repeated in the verb decolonize, which first appeared during the mass declaration
of independence by the former colonies.
Draftee, conscriptee, evacuee, promisee, licencee, selectee, insuree, etc. are
relatively new derivative nouns that created models for "to address" and "to refer,"
respectively. The basic structure of the words psycho-war, psychotherapy, and
electro-magnetism, which were already part of the language, was used to create the
compound abbreviated noun petro-war. Any word that is perceived as a structural
derivative and whose morphological structure can be understood, though not
always correctly, from an etymological point of view, can serve as the foundation
for new formations. Therefore, it is well known that the noun boycott has a simple,
non-derivative word structure and can be traced back to a proper name (the last
name of a person who is associated with this style of protest). However, using the
understanding of the boy component as a foundation, the humorous phrase ladycott
was created, which is a protest (or boycott) of women housewives who refuse to
buy food at a specific store due to the outrageously high price.You're aware of
what a "ladycott" is. The New York Times claims that a new term has been
developed to describe the supermarket boycott by American housewives
(MorningStar). The word "gram," when taken out of the phrases "telegram" and
"cablogram," was understood as a morpheme with the meaning "sent by
telegraph." This resulted in the creation of the new word "candygram," which is a
telegram with a box of candy attached. Send your friends a candy-gram, for
instance. (Advertisement). Interested origin. cheeseburgers and beefburgers as
nouns. The words are based on hamburger (chopped beefsteak), which has
significance as a compound word with the stem ham- rather than as a word that is
derived from Hamburg. The term -mat is incorporated as a morpheme in the newly
formed word laundromat (self-service laundry), as if to concentrate the meaning of
the noun automat in itself and separate it from the words automat and mailomat.
69
3.2. The pragmatic analysis of nominative and communicative aspect of
word formation. The expansion of the language's vocabulary is one of the
fundamental purposes of word development. Word construction serves a variety of
communicative purposes while simultaneously being in the "service" of grammar.
The most crucial of them is word recategorization, or the combination of a word
with another element of speech (for instance, swim'swim' - swimming'swimming',
smoke'smoke' - smoking'smoking', move'move' - movement'movement', etc.) in
order to give them new syntactic meanings. Universalization, or the expression in
one word of complex syntactic constructions and even sentences (cf. as black, as
coal, "black as coal"-coal-black, "as cold as ice," "cold as ice," "to fly around the
town aimlessly, like a butterfly," "to fly around the city aimlessly, like a butterfly,"
etc.), is carried out with the aid of word-formation processes.
The lexicalist hypothesis, which assumed the existence of lexical derivation
rules, provided an explanation for these instances and allowed us to speak of a
much larger volume of regularities in word formation. In light of this, R.
Jackendoff attempts to clarify how the principles of lexical derivation function in
the well-known article "Morphological Regularities in the Lexicon" [Jackendoff
1975]. These rules (lexical redundancy rules) are built on the basis of
generalizations of already known words of the language. If such rules are learned,
then they make it much easier to memorize new lexical units. So, for any
compound word N1N2 there is a morphological redundancy rule and a semantic
redundancy rule. When the latter is associated with the former, we get a finite set
of possible readings of N1N2 (in this case, Jackendoff considers the lexicalist
hypothesis on the example of English substantive composites). If the context is
such that it disambiguates N1N2, any English speaker who knows N1 and N2 will
be able to understand N1N2, whether or not they have heard the word before. In
contrast to the generativists of the transformational direction, R. Jackendoff does
not see a strict opposition of the rules for the formation of a phrase structure to
word-formation rules, however, He emphasizes that a phrase structure, not a
70
transformation, is the analog of such a rule. The semantic rules of the Deep
Structure projection and the semantic aspect of the word-formation rule are also
not in opposition to him. He draws attention to the fact that the corresponding
types of rules function in various modalities, including lexical (within words),
where information is typically retained in its entirety, and syntactic (outside the
word), where new phrases or sentences are constructed every time. The article's
overall recommendation is to no longer view the lexicon as a collection of
memorization exercises. [Jackendoff 1975: 668]. The concepts of the relationship
between syntax and semantics in word formation—which, as we've seen above,
was severely constrained in generativism; the emerging concept of the internal
syntax of a word by analogy with the construction of a phrase; and the significance
of context for comprehending the derived word—are crucial in light of the issue at
hand. The idea of refusing to view the lexicon as a collection of irregular units and
instead viewing syntax as a creative phenomenon is generally formed in the works
of this direction.
A derivative or compound word can be obtained by using the word-formation
model, which can also be seen as an algorithm. These include models of
univerbation, transformational models, and generative rules for word formation.
Such algorithms may be extremely strict or, on the other hand, may have few
restrictions. Domestic onomasiological studies, which are regarded as an early
form of cognitivism, developed and still maintain a strong line of functionalism.
“However, there is no doubt that in the works of the onomasiological trend there
was a clear tendency to reflect the actual cognitive, cognitive moments of
nominative activity and the features of the structures of consciousness created in
these processes, which had to be objectified in acts of nomination” [Kubryakova
1997: 42]. Word formation was given the primary role in the theory of nomination
despite the fact that it took units of nomination of various lengths into
consideration. The idea of word-formation meaning was developed within the
framework of the onomasiological direction, making it possible to connect the
71
conceptual level, the level of conceptualization, with the level of word-formation
modeling through a derivative word. The most successful attempt to model word
formation in all its specificity while also showing that it is subject to a variety of
rules, was the theory of E.S. Kubryakova about three types of word formation
processes: analogous, correlational and definitional [Kubryakova 1981: 25-39].
“The first word-formation process is provided by the knowledge of the model of
the word-formation series, the second - by the knowledge of regular wordformation correlations, the third - by the knowledge of the transition model from a
judgment about an object to its name” [Kubryakova 1981: 39]. The first two types
correspond to associative connections in thinking, the third - the establishment of
propositional connections.
The creation of a unique class of derivative words, or derivatives, that differ
from non-derivative, simple words in a number of key ways, is the second shared
characteristic and, in our opinion, the main characteristic linking the nominative
and communicative aspects of word formation.
A derivative is a secondary linguistic unit that, when there is a common
nuclear part, is one derivational step removed from the original unit while still
being formally and semantically dependent on it. The original unit can always be
used to explain the derivative's meaning because it serves as both its inspiration
and as a modification of its semantics. [31. 84].
Between derived words and their generating units, there is not and cannot be a
complete identity; instead, there are some structural similarities and differences, as
well as some semantic and/or categorical shifts. A relationship of word-formation
derivativeness is the term used to describe this kind of relationship between
vocabulary units. The units that they are based on have relationships with
producing and derivative, or motivating and motivated, units. A word or a more
complex unit, like a phrase, serves as a generating and motivating element upon
the structure and semantics of which a new name is built. It can be subjected to a
variety of formal operations, including the complete repetition of the sound form,
72
the collapse of the original form, the expansion or expansion of the structure at the
expense of word-formation means specifically present in the language, which
enables the identification of efficient word-formation techniques in the system of a
particular language.
The derived word formed on the basis of the generating word retains various
traces indicating its derivation from one or more units as a result of the various
formal operations the generating word goes through. The morphological
foundation of the generating word most frequently serves as a reflection of the
generating word in the derivative in modern English. Remember that the endings
are attached to this constant part of the word. In derivatives of the type
"performance,"
"elections,"
"beginning,"
"putting
things
in
order,"
"thoughtfulness," and similar generating words, the morphological bases
"perform," "elect," "begin," "arrange," and "thoughtfulness" are used to precisely
represent the derivatives. In a number of cases, for example: wind-driven 'driven
by the wind', frost-bitten 'frostbitten', unknown 'unknown', the producing words
appear in the form of their separate word forms - driven, bitten, known. In various
abbreviations, the trace of the generating word may be preserved as a letter (e.g.
BBC "British Broadcasting Corporation", UNO "United Nations Organization"
GPO "General Post Office"), a syllable (e.g. interpol "International police", doc "
doctor", vet "veterenarian", flu "influenza", sec "second", lab "laboratory", ad
"advertisement"), some sound complex (e.g. brunch (breakfast + lunch).
An important role in the formation of derivatives belongs to the derivational
affixes, or formants, which are specially existing in the language system. Since not
all affixes in the composition of words are derivational, the cardinal problem in
describing the affixal subsystem of any language is determining the derivational
status of affixal morphemes, establishing an inventory of derivational affixes and
their semantic load [31. 95].
The action that results in the creation of a derivative word is significant in
word-formation processes. If this involves adding an affix to the generating base
73
(such as dependent + in- -» independent 'independent', weak + -ness—weakness
'weakness', appear + re- -» reappear 'appear again', etc.), the outcome is an affixal
derived word. Compound words are created by combining producing bases, such
as air + line - airline, coal + basin - coal + basin, and ill + luck - ill + luck.
Derivative words formed by conversion (for example, to hammer 'to hammer,
hammer', to nail 'to hammer in nails, nail', a move 'movement', a run 'run, run') are
formed as a result of transposition, recategorization of the generating bases. The
main classification unit in word formation is the word-formation model, or wordformation type. This is a scheme, a sample, an analogue, a model, everything that
fixes the rule for constructing derivative words, a rule that takes into account the
type of generating stems and word-formation means and the generalized semantics
of the same type of words formed as a result of their interaction [22. 196].
The derivative model, which is the formations of the same type's structural
and semantic analogue, is their most general formula. This is a stable structure that
can accommodate a variety of lexical materials and has a generalized lexicalcategorical meaning. The word-formation model of these derivatives should
indicate that their generating bases are the names of persons by kinship, profession,
social status, etc., combined with the suffix -1y in the meaning of similarity. The
English language has a structural model that reflects the structure of derivative
adjectives - the construction -ly: womanly 'feminine', manly 'courageous', kingly
'royal', etc.
The problem of word-formation modeling reached a new level of analysis in
connection with the formation of the cognitive paradigm of knowledge (90s of the
XX century). Within the framework of the cognitive direction in linguistics (both
foreign and domestic), several directions can be distinguished. In this chapter, the
study of English word formation in the cognitive aspect is carried out within the
framework of the cognitive-discursive direction. Its essence is “in the orientation
towards the search and detection of certain correlations between cognitive and
linguistic structures[...]; it contributes to a deeper understanding of conceptual
74
analysis as aimed at identifying concepts in their dual function - both as
operational units of consciousness and as meanings of linguistic signs, i.e. as some
ideal units objectified in linguistic forms and categories[...]" [ Kubryakova 1997a:
24].
These provisions should be taken into consideration when interpreting wordformation models, which should be seen as specific categorization units of the
human language experience, conceptual structures of varying degrees of
generalization, and specific gestalts of consciousness about how words are made
and how they can be made. It can be assumed that some generalized analogues of
word-formation models exist in the human internal lexicon, even though
psycholinguists have not yet reached a consensus on whether derivatives and
compound words are stored in the mental lexicon in their entirety or in a
dismembered form. The history of the development of the theory of word
formation shows that initially an inventory of word-formation models was
compiled, then strictly logical rules for creating words were derived, and then these
rules were associated with human mental activity. At present, the theory of wordformation modeling is studying what conclusions can be drawn about the nature of
such operations of mental activity as comparison, identification, inference, concept
formation in connection with the structure of derivatives and compound words.
Within the framework of the cognitive-discursive paradigm, the mental processes
associated with the decoding and creation of a word are correlated with three types
of mental processes: association, analogy, and the construction of propositional
structures [Kubryakova 1997].
Back in 1981, E.S. Kubryakova [Kubryakova 1981] wrote about three types
of word formation, that is, about the ways in which one can come to the formation
of a certain word-formation pattern or rule. If verbal nouns in English are formed
using correlational word formation ( read - reader; speak - speaker; dance - dancer
), then nominal nouns are formed in a definitional way ( gardener - a person who
cultivates or tends a garden as a job or hobby; prisoner - a person confined in a
75
prison), and prefixes, as a rule, are analogous (co-worker, co-author, co-brother.
co-chairman).
Derivatives with idiomatic meaning are an exception. They are also created
using models, but definitional word formation is used because their meaning does
not exactly match the semantics of the model and contains a number of hidden
elements that can only be explained by using the right definition. For instance, a
worker, student, babysitter, etc. who shows little interest in his or her work but
constantly wonders when it will end keeps checking the clock to pack up and leave
when it is time to leave. The word-creating components of the definition are
highlighted in bold in this example, while the hidden semantic components are
underlined.
However, one cannot deny the role of regular syntactic rules in word
formation, especially when creating nominalizations (cf. D. Kastovsky's idea about
two functions of word-formation models: the function of naming and the function
of syntactic recategorization) [Kastovsky 1986: 594-597]. But along with syntactic
rules of a global nature (nominalizations with -er) in English word formation, a
much more significant role belongs to “small rules” [Kubryakova 1991: 9]. And if
morphological restrictions (although not numerous for the English language) are
described in detail, semantic relations were interpreted in the description of the
word-formation meaning of models in the course of onomasiological studies, then
at present the task of describing cognitive restrictions for each small rule comes to
the fore. In order to clarify the essence of such a description, let us turn to the
concept of mapping conceptual structures into linguistic forms. It lies in the fact
that certain concepts of the conceptual structure of a derivative or compound word
receive a linguistic expression, that is, they are, as it were, indicated by a dot on the
map of the language, while other concepts do not receive such an expression.
The child's understanding of the mapping problem plays a significant role in
their language development. The young person must identify the potential
meanings, point out the potential forms, and then map the meanings to the proper
76
forms. The child approaches the development of his own conceptual categories by
defining potential meanings. At the same time, he takes out potential word forms
and any hints as to their meaning from the speech that has been directed at him.
These hints can be discovered in the syntactic, morphological, and usage
characteristics of words. The process of mapping involves relating word forms to
meaning. A person who speaks a language must learn how the language maps
specific conceptual areas in order to use it effectively. In the case of word-building
modeling, this is exactly what happens when the speaker uses a sample to create or
decode a derivative or composite and knows which area of the map to refer to in
order to find the desired value and identify the form. When a linguist attempts to
restore the entire conceptual structure and the conceptual area to which it belongs
in accordance with the language implementation, the reverse process turns out to
be just as important. that is, highlighting the knowledge structure associated with
that or another derivative word and with their grouping by connecting the dots on
the map, as it were.
The cognitive limitations of small rules in word formation are precisely
related to how information is distributed in derivative words formed according to
each of the rules, which information must be explicitly explicated and which must
not. The role of small rules in the lexicon also lies in the fact that by combining
and thereby classifying the conceptual structures behind the material shells of
words formed according to this rule, they organize the lexicon [Kubryakova 1991:
9]. And The small rule then becomes an analog of these conceptual relationships,
on the basis of which a conceptual structure of a general nature is born, correlated
with the rule itself. This is because the concepts of a derivative or compound word
are in certain relationships, reflecting how a person conceptualizes the relationship
between objects or phenomena of reality.
We make assumptions about this kind of conceptualization by examining a
language's words, and as new words emerge that are formed in accordance with
this rule, we can further hone the conceptual structure we are studying. When the
77
concepts of this rule are associated with concepts outside of it, it is possible to
violate the cognitive restrictions attributed to this rule, but this violation must be
motivated and is typically so.
3.3 Cognitive analysis of formation of words and notions. Not all new
formations enter the language as new vocabulary units. New words used by
individuals, but not being usual, that is, familiar to other people speaking a given
language and not found in their speech, are called occasional words. Occasional
words are created according to the models existing in the language as a result of
the action of productive methods of word formation. For example: banditry on the
screen - about films with the participation of James Bond (Literaturnaya Gazeta),
time traveler (V. Bakhnov), swindle (D. Granin). What a garbage-brained fellow!
(A.Christie). I am uncled and mother-in-law in Texas. (J. Steinbeck). Some of the
developments of today are: cinerama, 3-D, and even smellovision. There was a
poster advertising the technique: 'First they moved (1893), then they talked (1927),
now they smell (1959)' (N. Tucker). Indispensable for seasiders! (Advertisement).
The candle is wiltless and dripless. (Advertisement).
The cognitive analysis of language units is aimed at studying how information
about the world is expressed, mapped by the language, that is, how the conceptual
system is implemented in the language. As E. S. Kubryakova notes, it is in
cognitive linguistics that the identification of knowledge structures according to
those linguistic forms that exist in the language has received the most fruitful
development [Kubryakova 1997: 271-272]. We consider in this section affixal
derivatives, composites, including telescopic words, and conversives. As part of
the cognitive analysis of word-formation categories, the subject of research
changes. The knowledge structures behind the derivatives are subject to research.
We call derivatives all the results of word-formation processes, regardless of the
mode of production. This will allow using the word “derivative” as a generalizing
one, despite the fact that in word-formation practice, affixal derivatives are called
derivatives. Derivatives are given a special role in cognitive word-formation
78
analysis, since they are considered as a different, compared to holistic (words that
are indivisible according to word-formation criteria), way of language
implementation of certain structures of knowledge representation. Analyzing
derivatives, one can determine "what features of an object are included in the
semantic structure of its designation and what conceptual components form its
basis" [Kubryakova 1994: 7]. In the course of the study in this section, we will
show that derivatives formed according to a model with a common derivational
meaning will demonstrate the repetition of such conceptual components and, thus,
will be based on a single knowledge structure. 2.1.1. Non-substantive suffix
models The purpose of this section is to describe the general picture of substantive
suffixal word-formation models using the example of agent names in modern
English. The whole set of such models was obtained by continuous sampling from
dictionaries and works of foreign and domestic researchers of word-formation
modeling [Marchand 1969; Adams 1973; Bauer 1983; Hatcher 1960; Bartkov
1980; Karashchuk 1977; Meshkov 1976; Pereva 1976; Tsarev 1984; Shadrin
1996]. Models N1+ suff —N2 The categorical nature of the basis - the noun suggests that cognitive operations will be carried out in the subject (in the broad
sense) conceptual area. On the other hand, as a result of the operation of adding a
suffix, we get a noun that also belongs to the subject conceptual area. The suffix in
this case performs a subcategorizing function within one subject conceptual area.
Above, we said that a derivative word is a linguistic realization of a certain
structure of knowledge, a certain cognitive content. And if at the first stages of
word-formation modeling two-component models were considered as samples for
the analysis and creation of suffix derivatives, then at present two parts of the
suffix derivative are considered as a superficial realization of the conceptual
structure.
The suffix -er conceptualizes an active person in scientific and professional
fields. The predicates for derivatives of model (6) are: DEAL WITH - archeologist,
philosopher, astronomer, treasurer, financier, lawyer; MAKE - glover, juweller;
79
SELL - confectioner, glover; WORK WITH - hammerer, boater; WORK - miner;
full-timer. How, using the received data, we can restore knowledge structures
behind derived data word-formation patterns? First of all, we rely on how the
language maps the conceptual area "human professional activity" with the help of
suffix derivatives. In English, five suffixes serve this purpose. Each of the suffixes
maps its share of the "professional activity of a person" conceptual area: -(i)an - a
professional figure in the field of various sciences, medicine. The concepts
expressed by the -ist suffix belong to the same conceptual domain, but it takes
precedence over -(i)an in productivity. This means that in the part of the mental
lexicon where language knowledge is stored, the -ist pattern for a given conceptual
area has more free access than the -(i)an pattern. The -er suffix is at the opposite
end of the semantic transparency scale from -(i)an. As in the names of the figure of
the conceptual area "place of residence", he only categorizes the active principle.
The basis conceptualizes the object, tool, place of action, and the predicate
organizes concepts into a knowledge structure specific to each specific derivative
word. I would especially like to note the "professional status" of the suffixes -eer
and -ster. Some researchers of English word formation deny them such a status,
referring them to derivatives characterized by an emotional assessment with a
touch of contempt [Tsarev 1984:142]. But for -ster, the above examples of
substantive derivatives are not contemptuous, the same can be traced in the V +
ster > N model: bandster (sheaf binder), teamster (silk-roller), gongster (traffic
controller). It is true that words with -ster professional meaning are obsolete, and er is used instead of this suffix. Nevertheless, the substantive and verbal models
with -ster seem to continue to retain the properties of the small rule and can
become a model for creating nominations in professional activities. As for the
suffix -eer, the corpus of the derivatives we studied allows us to assert that this
model functions in the conceptual area of "a person in relation to his professional
activity" as actively as it does to create emotionally colored derivatives
(crotcheteer a person with quirks; pamphleteer - scribbler, however, there is also
80
the meaning of "pamphleteer"). Wed the occasional formation "Pulp Fictioneer" in
the following example: "A bit of misdirection by director Quentin Tarantino could
cost the Pulp Fictioneer a year in the pokey, Reuters reports" (The Moscow Times
20 June 1998, 28). This derivative can be interpreted as "the director who staged
"Pulp Fiction". The only way we can tell that this formation is emotionally charged
is because of the context (the renowned filmmaker engaged in a number of
unsightly activities, including berating one woman and slapping another). As a
language representation of the conceptual domain "professional activity of a
person," the names of the figures created using these models serve this purpose.
Both the first and second steps of the derivational process result in the production
of feminine names. Both holistic signals (host, chap) and suffix derivatives (leader,
comedian) are combined with feminine suffixes. Due to the fact that the name of
the male figure is produced during the first step of the derivation in the second
instance, the feminine suffix can be seen as conceptualizing the active principle.
The only way to include a suffix derivative in the category of a person's name and
consider it to be associated with the concept of "active principle" in the case of a
suffix attached to a holistic sign is based on its meaning. Thus, a host is 1) a person
who amuses guests and 2) an innkeeper or hotelier. Consequently, the name of the
figure can be interpreted as dancehall hostess, a lady who owns and manages a
dancehall. Chap, also known as a man, boy, or fellow, is a holistic symbol of the
onomasiological category "person," hence chapess cannot be categorized under the
name of the figure.
There is another important cognitive limitation in relation to the names of the
figure: opposition on the basis of animation - inanimateness. "The distinction
between animate and inanimate objects is the main one in classifier systems," notes
E.V. Clark, describing similar moments in the semantics of words - classifiers and
in the initial ideas of children regarding the meanings of words [Clark 1984: 224].
In this case, anthropocentrism has a significant impact on the ways of
conceptualizing the situation of action and its participants. A person, realizing
81
himself as an active principle, opposes himself to the means and tools that he uses
in his activity, and mechanical devices, even the most advanced ones, are
conceptualized as fulfilling the will of a person under his control. Among the
models considered in this chapter, there are those that express this opposition
through linguistic means. However, in a number of models this opposition is
neutralized. This applies to models N1 + er > N2; V+er; V+or; V + ant(ent); V >
N; N1 + N2; N1 + N(v)2; N+V+er; V+N; Adj + N. The suffixes -er and -or are the
most typical representatives of this neutralization. The suffix -er is close in its
properties to inflectional affixes, since it has few restrictions on attaching to
nominal and verbal stems. Especially clearly its universal syntactic properties are
manifested in verbal derivatives. It is obvious that the productivity of the suffix -er
follows from its derivational universality. This universality, in turn, in addition to
the wide combinatorial possibilities of -er, suggests that this suffix must be
conceptually generalized. In this case, the neutralization in -er of the oppositions of
the concepts animateness - inanimateness, removing the indicated opposition, leads
to the corresponding conceptual generalization, to the expression of the active
principle in the situation of action. The suffix -or also conceptualizes an active
principle, more often an inanimate agent (a machine, an instrument). In modern
English, -or is usually attached to Romance stems, expressing only the
instrumental meaning [Karashchuk 1965: 20]. It has a number of combinatorial
restrictions. However, a large number of legal and political terms, as well as the
names of professions (administrator), are created with this suffix, so in general it
represents the neutralization of the opposition under discussion. So, we have
carried out the initial stage of cognitive analysis of substantive suffixal nouns. This
type of analysis is called onomasiological. It consisted in describing those generic
meanings associated with the arguments of the propositions behind each model,
and with the atomic predicates linking these arguments. We have repeatedly
emphasized that the first argument of the proposition, which corresponds to the
suffix in each of the models, refers to the subject conceptual area. At the same
82
time, since the subject area itself has a further conceptually significant division,
suffixes perform a subcategorizing function, isolating a section of subject
meanings - "person", "object", and serve as a means of linguistic implementation
of the concept "active beginning". As for the second argument of the proposition,
corresponding to the onomasiological attribute, it also refers to the subject area.
Here, the analysis of the derivative names of the actor allowed us to determine
which parts of the cognitive model of activity (object, tool, scene, etc.) were
realized in their linguistic representation by the basis of the suffix derivative. At
this stage, we have also described generalized predicates that establish a
connection between the arguments of the proposition. We have been able to
reconstruct these predicates, relying on the second argument of the proposition, on
the onomasiological feature. It is he who allows you to determine the nature of the
relationship between the arguments. For the considered models, we have identified
LIVE predicates; DEAL WITH; WORK; SUPPORT; TAKE PART IN; WORK
WITH; MAKE; BE; BE IN; ACT; CAUSE; HAVE; LIKE; MOVE.
With the aid of a concept that represents a procedural attribute (category of a
verb), all the models outlined above show that, at the level of connecting concepts,
a relationship is constructed between two subject-area concepts (category of a
noun). This indicates conceptually that each model's knowledge structure can be
thought of as a predicate verb-based linkage of subject entities. However, it is clear
that a structure like this for knowledge representation only emphasizes the most
fundamental type of relations: when something interacts with another thing. One
should initially focus on the conceptual articulation of the subject entities
themselves in order to concretize such frameworks. In onomasiological studies, it
was noted that the range of meanings of nouns is so vast that it is necessary further
categorization by subcategories: "object", "thing", "person"; "concept", "feeling",
"state"; "activity", "situation"; "place", "time". So, the 16 models listed above serve
to create animated nouns, and therefore the first argument of the proposition,
corresponding to the onomasiological basis (person who) and expressed at the
83
linguistic level by the indicated suffixes, corresponds to the concept PERSON. The
second argument of the proposition, corresponding to onomasiological feature and
expressed at the linguistic level by the generating basis, correlates with the
concepts: SUBJECT, CONCEPT, SITUATION, PLACE. Thus, the second
argument of the proposition is correlated with such objective entities, on which the
action of the active principle is directed. For 17 propositions from substantive
suffixal word-building models, the following concepts are distinguished: ACTOR,
OBJ, INSTR, MEANS, PLACE, PATH, GROUP (CONTAINER), TIME,
EVENT. In turn, the concept predicate indicates the relationship between two
subject entities, linking the PERSON and the SUBJECT; PERSON and
CONCEPT; PERSON and SITUATION; PERSON and PLACE. Thus, we get
knowledge structures: PERSON - LIVES - PLACE; PERSON - DOES - OBJECT;
PERSON - WORKING - PLACE; PERSON - LEARNING - CONCEPT;
PERSON - SUPPORTS - SITUATION; PERSON - WORK WITH HELP - TOOL,
etc.
Conclusion of chapter III. The evolution of language as a historical event is
ongoing, and lexical changes are the main indicator of these changes. Today's
dynamic adjustments are mostly focused on improving communication.
Additionally, occasionalization is among the most popular strategies for creating
lexical systems. The issue of preserving the language's nominative forms is being
resolved concurrently. E. A. Zemskaya emphasizes such a characteristic feature of
substandard word formation as the creation of minute words (occasionalisms),
which are unusual words that, as a rule, exist “only in a certain context that gave
rise to them” [18. 228].
Speech creativity contributes to the great independence of morphemes in an
uncodified language, as well as the great variability of combinations of individual
elements, not related to the combination norms, i.e. the speaker freely singles out
and uses the necessary part of the word (verbalizes it) [17. 112].
84
Of course, occasionalisms used by authors in literary writings cannot be
broadly construed as "live," "authentic," or subpar occasionalisms used in
contemporary colloquial speech. Although occasionalisms - ephemeral neoplasms,
minute words - are rarely given the chance to live more than one statement in a real
communication situation, we are interested in studying these neoplasms in modern
fiction as an indicator of some linguistic trends fixed for us by the authors. The
ability to experiment with different multi-level linguistic components and amply
display the potential richness of expressive word construction is made feasible by
sporadic units.
“Occasionalism as a fact of speech is nevertheless set by the language system,
manifests and develops the semantic, word-formation and grammatical capabilities
of this system, predicts the trends of its development” [14. 4]. Occasional words
are not recorded in dictionaries. To understand them, it is necessary to establish in
what way and according to what structural model a given neoplasm was created,
and to translate it based on the meaning of its stems and word-building affixes, and
in the case of conversion, from the meaning of the original word. Neoplasms used
by the majority of people who speak a given language, but which have appeared in
the language relatively recently, are called words.
However, the term "neologism" is quite ambiguous because there is no
definition of when a neoplasm is designated a neologism elsewhere in the
linguistic literature. Since vocabulary "directly reacts to what is happening in the
world of realities" and "directly reflects our ideas about various phenomena of
extralinguistic activity," it is the most porous, flexible, and dynamic aspect of
language. Words are proof of the existence of language, of its desire to express the
whole breadth of human knowledge, and of the advancement of civilization.
The rapid advancement of science and technology has led to the appearance
of particularly many terminology in these fields of study. Not inferior to neoplasms
in the realm of mass media in terms of science and technology. In discussing the
characteristics of new formations in contemporary mass media, it is important to
85
highlight that while the media, on the one hand, employs a wide range of linguistic
possibilities in its competition for readers with rival publications, on the other
hand, they themselves have a large influence on it. Word creation is being used as
a unique method of generating text expressiveness as the language of mass
communication becomes more targeted at the mass reader.
CONCLUSION
Until now, there is no fundamentally unanimous opinion regarding the criteria
for selecting materials (words) for dictionaries of new words from different
linguistic schools. So, in order to include a word in Barnhart's dictionary of new
words, it is necessary that it be used within one year, while in the lexicographic
86
center of Oxford University this period is five times longer, which excludes the
possibility of fixing words - one-day, occasionalisms of various kinds.
So, the onomasiological analysis of the word-formation models of the
category of the name of the figure made it possible to establish, on the basis of the
analysis of the word-formation meanings of the models (110 realizations), the main
concepts associated with human activity. These concepts are carriers of
information about the aspects of activity and in the aggregate of their relations are
isomorphic to the structure of activity. All concepts are based on the basic
ontological categories of objectivity, procedural and non-procedural features,
place, time and event. The linking of concepts through operational or atomic
predicates carried out during the nomination (especially at the moment of creating
a word) leads to the formation of propositional structures, which are a format for
storing knowledge about activity, expressed by the language in the names of the
actor. As a result of the study, 50 types of propositional relations were obtained,
which are based on such mental operations as identification and inference. The
analysis of word-formation meanings and corresponding concepts for the category
of the name of the figure allows us to make some conclusions about how the
structures of knowledge about the figure are organized in the cognitive systems of
English speakers and how they are represented using the system of word-building
means. The study of representation structures of various types of knowledge is
considered as one of the central problems of the cognitive approach to language.
Since the units of nomination - derived words - are products of thought, the results
of combining a number of concepts into a single conceptual structure, the
organization of these concepts, the very principle of their linking and the result of
such an associative connection should obviously be considered as a way of
representing knowledge to the human mind. Researchers in the field of cognitive
linguistics believe that such conceptual associations are propositional in nature.
Propositions are considered within the framework of modern cognitive linguistic
research as one of the main types of knowledge representation structures.
87
"The proposition contains certain information and is therefore a certain
structure of knowledge" [Kubryakova 1994: 8] Along with propositions, at the
present stage of development of linguistic knowledge, frames, scripts, scenarios,
figurative schemes are also considered as knowledge representation structures.
What is the peculiarity of a proposition as a format for storing knowledge? Let us
cite the point of view of J. Lakoff. "A simple proposition is itself an example of
what we call a "propositional ICM" (idealized cognitive model - E.P.). A simple
proposition consists of an ontology of elements ("arguments") and a basic
predicate linking these arguments. the structure of a proposition is characterized by
the scheme PART - WHOLE, where the proposition corresponds to the whole, the
predicate to the parts, and the arguments to the other parts.In addition, there are
certain semantic relations between the arguments, there can be an agent, a patient,
an experiencer, an instrument, a place, etc. From a structural point of view,
semantic relations are represented by connection schemes that attribute types of
connections to categories of relations (for example, the category of agent)" [Lakoff
1996: 177]. Proposition is the main means of restructuring the idea of the utterance
into external speech. Chains of propositions form an utterance. An utterance
related to a situation explicates the relations that the speaker establishes between
the participants in the situation and the concepts that he combines into
propositional structures. This point of view on the process of generating speech can
be considered well-established in modern linguistics. Currently, within the
framework of research in cognitive linguistics, scientists are trying to more fully
reveal
the
relationship
between
perception,
understanding
of
reality,
conceptualization, ways of organizing concepts into knowledge structures and
ways of fixing, fixing these knowledge structures in the language. However, the
statements that the same nature of correspondence is also characteristic of the
process of nomination by a derivative word, especially the moment of its creation
by a native speaker, can be attributed to the achievements of recent decades in the
development of the theory of nomination, and then the cognitive-discursive
88
direction in Russian linguistics [Kubryakova 1994a; Kubryakova 1997]. The
conducted study of knowledge structures for the category of the name of the figure
made it possible to verify this general theoretical position of the cognitivediscursive direction to a certain extent. The derivational meanings of all the models
we have considered can be represented as ratios of a function and one or two
proposition arguments (which is what the table above demonstrates). At the same
time, a complete study of all knowledge structures for one onomasiological
category "actor" allows us to draw certain theoretical conclusions about the ways
of representing knowledge specifically for this category. The knowledge
representation structures of the actor's name category can be divided into three
groups. The first, the most extensive, includes the core, central structures of
knowledge, which represent associations of concepts that are most typical for the
situation of action. However, as V.I. Zabotkin, the theory of neology in English has
not yet taken shape as an independent science, and the material, and the material
that is available, more than 800 words a year, according to F. Burchfield, sets the
task for Anglists not only to fix new words, but also to study them . Author of the
dictionary “Longman Register of New Words” (Longman Group Uk Limited,
1989) D.Aito included in his dictionary all new words registered for the first time
in written texts (mainly in the press, periodicals) during the period from 1986 to
1988 (3 years). The author of the no less fundamental and authoritative dictionary
of new vocabulary “Bloomsbury Doctionary of New Words” M. 1996 Jonathan
Green included in his dictionary 2700 new words that have come into use since
1960. as wide a range of necessary words as possible. The word and the way it is
used must have entered the language within the last thirty years. The bulk of the
vocabulary consists of words. Let's give a definition of neologism in the
"Dictionary of Linguistic Terms": Neologism is a word or phrase created (arising)
to denote a new (previously unknown) object or expression of a new concept,
although in such a dictionary, according to D. Green, there are inevitably old
words that began to be used in a new meaning (in terms adopted by us - a new
89
lexical-semantic version of the word). The main principle when including a word
in the dictionary was their wide use. British English was taken as the basis. Unlike
the author of the dictionary of new words “Longman Register”, D. Green used as
many quotations as possible as illustrations, but not examples of the initial use of a
particular word. The author justifiably did not include in the dictionary either
jargon or slang, "nor an endlessly growing stock of technical terms." At the same
time, he (like all other authors of such dictionaries) tried to exclude a huge number
of temporary words, concepts of one-time use. He notes, "I will try to focus my
attention on the main candidates to become facts of language, those who have
stood the test of time and achieved the status of common words." Both the
temporal characteristic and the criteria for selecting vocabulary for the dictionary
meet the requirements of the practical processing of the material of our study,
therefore, having chosen it, we were convinced in practice of its convenience,
flexibility and functionality. In this regard, our work took into account the
dictionaries of new words published in authoritative English editions, a sufficient
source of information about the new word, despite the fact that there is still no
single principle for selecting vocabulary for such dictionaries. Starting to study the
topic "Derivative words in the English language", the following tasks were set: 1.
Study the material for the purpose of theoretical justification; 2. Analyze the ways
of word formation in modern English; 3. To identify the frequency of the use of
one or another method of word formation;
Having studied in detail and considered the methods of word formation in the
English language at the present stage, the following conclusions were made: Word
formation should be perceived as a normal linguistic phenomenon, and the absence
of a word in the dictionary cannot serve as an obstacle to its translation; the lexical
composition of the target language with new words. In any case, when the meaning
of a new word is known, it is possible to convey it using the considered methods.
After analyzing a number of word dictionaries, it can be argued that such methods
as word production and word composition give the main number of new
90
formations. So, new words are created on the basis of existing word-formation
models of the language, replenishing and expanding its vocabulary. These words
really exist in the language and are fixed in dictionaries. However, the creation of
new words not only, and by no means always, pursues the goal of meeting the
needs of society in the expression of new concepts. In speech, both oral and
written, words constantly appear that do not at all express something new, any new
concept or idea. Very often, words are created that convey concepts that already
exist in a given language, but expressed by other linguistic means. Similar units
(words or phrases) are formed in a given case for a given context, expressing to a
large extent the author's attitude to the statement. These words, in contrast to the
various words of the language, are traditionally called potential or occasional
(nonce words). In accordance with the notion that has developed in linguistics, in
most cases, potential words are created by individual authors explicitly for stylistic
purposes, to create a certain stylistic effect. Therefore, some linguists classify all
new words created in the language as stylistic words.
LIST OF USED LITERATURE
1.
Ченки А. Семантика в когнитивной лингвистике // Фундаментальные
направления современной американской лингвистики. М.:Изд-во МГУ,
2.
Перева А.В. Система суффиксации в современном английском языке:
Дис.... канд. филол. наук. М., 1976. 296 с.
91
3. Aronoff M. Potential Words, Actual Words, Productivity, and Frequency
//Proceedings of the XIII-th International Congress of Linguists. Tokyo, 1983.
4. Aronoff M. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. London; Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press, 1981. 134 p.
5. Bauer L. English Word Formation. Cambridge: CUP, 1983. 311 p.
6. Chomsky N. Remarks on Nominalization // Readings in Transformational
Grammar / Jacobs R., Rosenbaum P.( eds.). Waltham, Mass., 1970. P. 184221.
7.
Collins Essential English Dictionary. Sixth edition. Glasgow, 2006.-260 с.
8. Fillmore Ch. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning // Berkeley
Linguistic Society. Berkeley, California, 1975. V.1. P. 123-131.
9. Givon T. On Understanding Grammar. London: Academic Press, 1979. 379
10. Halle M. Prolegomena to a Theory of Word-Formation // Linguistic Inquiry.
1973. No.4. P. 3-16.
11. Hatcher A.G. An Introduction to the Analysis of English Noun Compounds //
Word. 1960. V.16. No.3. P. 356-373.
12. Hoekstra T, Hulst H. van der, Moortgat M. Introduction // Lexical Grammar.
Dordrecht; Cinnaminson, 1981. P. 1-48.
13. Jackendoff R. Morphological Regularities in the Lexicon // Language. 1975. V.
51. No.3. P.639-672.
14. Jackendoff R. The Conceptual Structure of Rights and Obligations // Papers of
the XVI International Congress of Linguists. Paris, 1997a. P. 1-16.
15. Kastovsky D. The Problem of Productivity in Word Formation // Linguistics.
1986. No.24. P. 583-600.
16. Langacker R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites.
Stanford, CA.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1987. V.1. 516 p.
17. Langacker R.W. Settings, Participants, and Grammatical Relations // Meanings
and Prototypes. Studies on Linguistic Categorization / S.L.Tsohatzidis (ed.).
Oxford: Routledge, 1990. P. 213-238.
92
18. Levi J. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. N.Y.: Academic
Press, 1978. 301 p
19.
Macmillan English Dictionary for advanced learners. International Student
Edition, Malaysia, 2002.
20. Malkiel Y. Derivational Categories // Universals of Human Language. Word
Structure / J.H.Greenberg (ed.). Stanford, CA., 1978. V. 3. P. 125-151.
21. Marchand H. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Wordformation. Munchen, 1969. 545 p.
22.
p.
23.
P.163-171.
24.
Robert K. Barnhart. Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. Изд:
Collins.; 1995г. -944 с.
25. Ryder M.E. Ordered Chaos. The Interpretation of English Noun-Noun
Compounds. Berkeley; Los Angeles, CA., 1994. 449 p.
26. Selkirk E. The syntax of words. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1982. 136
p.
27. Talmy L. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition // Topics in Cognitive
Linguistics / B.Rudzka-Ostin (ed.). Amsterdam,PA.:John Benjamins Publ.Co.,
1988. P.165 -207.
28. Warren B. Semantic Patterns of Noun-Noun Compounds. Goteborg, 1978.
29.
Авакова, В.А. (Гончарова, В.А.) Новообразования с префиксом анти- в
современных СМИ / В.А. Авакова // Культурная жизнь юга России (издание
ВАК РФ). -Краснодар, 2007. - № 2 (21). - C. 89 - 93.
30.
Амосова.Н.Н.; Основы английской фразеологии, Изд.: Либроком, 2010.
-216 с.
31.
Андреева
В.К.,
Максимова
Т.В.
Некоторые
тенденции
в
словообразовании английского языка последней четверти XX века //
Языковая личность: проблемы креативной семантики. К 70-летию проф. И.В.
93
Сентенберга. Сб. научных трудов/ ВГПУ -Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. С. 4654.
32.
Аракин В.Д. Возникновение корневого или бессуффискального
способа словообразования в английском языке. - В кн.: Сб.статей по
языкознанию памяти проф. М.В. Сершевского. - М.: 1961.
33.
Арбекова Т. И. Лексикология английского языка. Москва, 1977
34.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Проблемы морфологии и словообразования (на
материале испанского языка). М.: Языки славянских культур, 2007. 288 с.
35.
Бабенко Н. Г. Окказиональное в художественном тексте. Структурно-
семантический анализ : учеб. пособие / Н. Г. Бабенко. – Калининград : Изд-во
КГУ, 1997. – 84 с.
36.
Болдырев Н.Н. Функциональная категоризация английского глагола.
С.-Пб. - Тамбов, 1995. 139 с.
37.
Володина М.Н. Язык СМИ - основное средство воздействия на
массовое сознание //
Язык СМИ как объект междисциплинарного
исследования. - М., 2003.
38.
Гарифуллина Л.А. Суффиксальный способ образования терминов
индустрии гостеприимства в английском языке / Л.А.Гарифуллина //
Материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции. - Казань:
Изд-во КазГАУ, 2007. - Т. 74, часть 2. - С. 223-227.
39.
Гумбольдт В. фон « Избранные труды по языкознанию». -М., 1984.-400
с.
40.
Демьянков В.З. Фрейм // КСКТ. М.:Филолог.ф-тет МГУ,1996. С. 187-
189
41.
Елисеева В.В. Лексикология английского, Изд.: СПбГУ 2003г.- 290 с.
42.
Жлуктенко Ю. А., Березинский В. А. Английские неологизмы. - Киев:
Наукова думка. 1983 - 154 с.
43.
Заботкина В. И. Новая лексика современного английского языка. - М.:
ВШ. 1989
94
44.
Заботкина В.И. Новая лексика современного английского языка: учеб.
пособ. для ин-тов и фак-тов иностр. яз.- М.: Высшая школа, 1989.-126 с.
45.
Земская Е. А. Русский язык как иностранный.Русская разговорная речь.
Лингвистический анализ и проблемы обучения / Е. А. Земская. – М. : Флинта
:Наука, 2004. – 240 с.
46.
Земская Е. А. Современный русский язык : Словообразование / Е. А.
Земская. – М. : Просвещение,1973. – 304 с.
47.
Каращук П. М. Аффиксальное словообразование в английском языке.
М., 1965
48. Каращук П.М. Словообразование английского языка. М., 1977. 303 с.
49.
Каращук П.М. Словообразование английского языка: Уч. пособие для
вузов по спец. «Романо-германские языки и литература». - М.: Высшая
школа, 1977. - 303 c.
50.
Каращук П.М., «Словообразование английского языка». - М., 1977.-
302 с.
51. Кубрякова Е.С. Глаголы действия через их когнитивные характеристики //
Логический анализ языка. Модели действия. М.:
52.
Кубрякова Е.С. Динамическое представление синхронной системы
языка // Гипотеза в современной лингвистике. М.: Наука, 1980. С. 217 -261.
53. Кубрякова Е.С. Лексикон и современные проблемы его изучения //
Картина мира: лексикон и текст (на материале английского языка): Сб.
научн. тр. МГЛУ. М., 1991. Вып. 375. С. 4-11.
54. Кубрякова Е.С. Номинативный аспект речевой деятельности. М.: Наука,
1986. 158 с.
55. Кубрякова Е.С. Производное слово как языковая структура представления
знаний // Английский лексикон и структуры представления знаний. Сб. науч.
тр. МГЛУ. Вып. 429. М., 1994. С. 4-11.
56.
Кубрякова Е.С. Типы языковых значений. Семантика производного
слова. - М.: Наука, 1981. - 258 с.
95
57.
Кубрякова Е.С. Типы языковых значений. Семантика производного
слова. М.:Наука, 1981. 200 с.
58.
Кубрякова Е.С. Части речи в ономасиологическом освещении. М.:
Наука, 1978. 188 с.
59. Кубрякова Е.С. Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. М.: Ин-т
языкознания РАН, 1997. 330 с.
60.
Кубрякова Е.С. Что такое словообразование. - М.,1965. - 78 с.
61. Кубрякова Е.С. Что такое словообразование? М.: Наука, 1965.
62.
Кубрякова Е.С. Язык и знание, Изд: Языки славянской культуры, 2004.-
560 с.
63. Кубрякова Е.С. Язык пространства и пространство языка (к постановке
проблемы) // Изв. АН. Сер. лит. и яз. 1997а. Т.56. No.3. С. 22-31.
64.
Кунин А. В. Фразеология современного английского языка. М, 1972
65. Лакофф Дж. Когнитивное моделирование // Язык и интеллект. М.:Изд.
группа «Прогресс», 1996. С. 143-184.
66. Мешков О. Д. Словосложение в современном английском языке: Учеб.
пос. М.: Высш. шк., 1985. 187 с.
67. Мешков О.Д. Словообразование современного английского языка. М.,
1976. 245 с.Щерба Л.В. Языковая система и речевая деятельность. - Л., 1974.
- С. 24-39
68.
Наука, 1992. С. 84-90.
69. Никитин М.В. Курс лингвистической семантики. С.-Пб: Научн.центр
проблем диалога, 1997. 760 с.
70. Нухов С.Ж. Сложные слова, образованные по модели S + Ver, в
английском языке // Семантика языковых единиц разных уровней. Уфа, 1994.
С. 7-14.
71.
Оксфордский словарь английского языка, Изд.: «Oxford University
Press». 2005г.-808с.
96
72. Панкрац
Ю.Г.
Пропозициональные
модели/структуры
//
КСКТ.
М.:Филолог. ф-тет МГУ им. М.В.Ломоносова, 1996. С. 134-137.
73.
Полькина Г.М., Радионова С.В. «Методические рекомендации по
написанию
и
оформлению
выпускной
квалификационной
работы».
Набережные Челны; 2009.-31с.
74.
Рецкер Я. И. Теория перевода и переводческая практика. М., 1974
75. Сахарный Л.В. Словообразование в речевой деятельности (образование и
функционирование производного слова в русском языке): Автореф. дис.... дра филол. наук. Л., 1980. 48 с.
76.
Словарь лингвистических терминов Дэвида Кристалла «словарь
лингвистики и фонетики», 5-е издание, Изд.: Blackwell Publishers, 2003.-410 с.
77.
Смирницкий А. И. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956
78.
Солнцев В. М. Язык как системно-структурное образование. М, 1971
79. Степанова М.Д. Словообразование современного немецкого языка
(краткий очерк) // Словарь словообразвательных элементов немецкого языка
/А.Н.Зуев, И.Д.Молчанова, Р.З.Мурясов и др.; под рук. М.Д.Степановой. М.:
Рус.яз.,1979. С. 519-536.
80.
Супрун А. Е. Лекции по языкознанию. Минск 1971
81. Торопцев И.С. Словопроизводственная модель. Воронеж: Изд-во ВГУ,
1980. 147 с.
82.
Фиттерман А. М., Левицкая Т. Р. Пособие по переводу английского
языка на русский. М., 1973
83. Царев П.В. Продуктивное именное словообразование в современном
английском языке. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1984. 225 с.
84. Шадрин В.И. Ономасиология производного имени в английском языке:
Учебн. пособие. С.-Пб.: Изд-во С.-Петербургского ун-та, 1996. 144 с.
85.
http://www.aviaenglish.ru/articles/article_13/
86.
http://teneta.rinet.ru/Паршин А. Теория и практика перевода, ч. 2.
87.
www. amursu. ru/vestnic/3/3 - 18. doc
97
88.
www. anriintern.com/leseng 2/ lengpart/ wrdbuild/ build 3. Htm
89.
www.old.festu.ru/ru/structure/library/Library/science/S 128/article 41.
htm
90.
www.phil. pu. ru./depts./ 02/ anglisticaXXI_01/0.htm
91.
www. referat.ru/pub/E/17016
98