Lecture № 6. Free Word-groups. Stylistically Marked and Stylistically Neutral Words

Lecture № 6. Free Word-groups. Stylistically Marked and Stylistically Neutral Words

Every utterance is a patterned, rhymed and segmented sequence of signals. On the lexical level these signals building up the utterance are not exclusively words. Alongside this separate words speakers use larger blocks consisting of more than one word. Words combined to express ideas and thoughts make up word-groups. The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of words within word-groups may vary. Some word-groups are functionally and semantically inseparable: rough diamond, cooked goose. Such word-groups are traditionally described as set-phrases or phraseological units. Characteristic features of phraseological units are non-motivation for idiomaticity and stability of context. They cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. The component members in other word-groups possess greater semantic and structural independence: to cause misunderstanding, to shine brightly, linguistic phenomenon, red rose. Word-groups of this type are denned as free word-groups for free phrases. They are freely made up in speech by the speakers according to the needs of communication. Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semi-fixed combinations. All these different stages of restrictions imposed upon co-occurrence of words, upon the lexical filling of structural patterns which are specific for every language. The restriction may be independent of the ties existing in extra-linguistic reality between the object spoken of and be conditioned by purely linguistic factors, or have extralinguistic causes in the history of the people. In free word-combination the linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties of words.

Free word-group is a group of syntactically connected notional words within a sentence, which by itself is not a sentence. This definition is recognized more or less universally in this country and abroad. Though Other linguistics define the term word-group differently — as any group of words connected semantically and grammatically which does not make up a sentence by itself. From this point of view words-components of a word-group may belong to any part of speech, therefore such groups as in the morning, the window, and Bill are also considered to be word-groups (though they comprise only one notional word and one form-word).

STRUCTURE OF FREE WORD-GROUPS

Structurally word-groups may be approached in various ways. All word-groups may be analysed by the criterion of distribution into two big classes. Distribution is understood as the whole complex of contexts in which the given lexical unit can be used. If the word-group has the same linguistic distribution as one of its members, it is described as endocentric i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group. The word-groups red flower, bravery of all kinds, are distributionally identical with their central components flower and braver, cf: I saw a red flower - 1 saw a flower; I appreciate bravery of all kinds - I appreciate bravery. If the distribution of the word-group is different from either of its members, it is regarded as exocentric i.e. as having no such central member, for instance side by side or grow smaller and others where the component words are not syntactically substitutable for the whole word-group. In endocentric word-groups the central component that has the same distribution as the whole group is clearly the dominant member or the head to which all other members of the group are subordinated, in the word-group red flower the head is the noun flower and in the word-group kind of people the head is the adjective kind.

Word-groups are also classified according to their syntactic pattern into predicative and non-predicative groups. Such word-groups, e.g. John works, he went that have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence, are classified as predicative, and all others as non-predicative. Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided according to the type of syntactic relation between the components into subordinate and coordinative. Such word-groups as red flower, a man of wisdom and the like are termed subordinate in which flower and man are head-words and red, of wisdom are subordinated to them respectively and function as their attributes. Such phrases as woman and child, day and night, do or die are classified as coordinative. Both members in these word-groups are functionally and semantically equal. Subordinate word-groups may be classified according to their head-words into nominal groups (red flower), adjectival groups (kind to people), verbal groups (to speak well), pronominal (all of them). The head is not necessarily the component that comes first in the word-group. In such nominal word-groups as very great bravery, bravery in the struggle the noun bravery is the head whether followed or preceded by other words.

MEANING OF FREE WORD-GROUPS. INTERRELATION OF STRUCTURAL AND LEXICAL MEANINGS IN WORD-GROUPS. MOTIVATION IN WORD-GROUPS

The meaning of word-groups may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the components. The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical mean­ing of the component words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group red flower may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red and flower. It should be pointed out, however, that the term combined lexical meaning is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive result of all the lexical meaning of the component members. As a rule, the meaning of the component words are mutually dependant and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the lexical meanings of its constituents.

Word-groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed by the pattern of arrangement of their constituent’s. Such word groups as school grammar and grammar school are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words. It is assumed that the structural pattern of word-group is the carrier of a certain semantic component which does not necessarily depend on the actual lexical meaning of its members. In the example discussed above school grammar the structural meaning of the word-group may be abstracted from the group and described as equality-substance meaning. This is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the word-group but not by either the word school or the word grammar. It follows that we have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.

The lexical and structural meaning in word-groups are interdependent and inseparable. The inseparability of these two semantic components in word-groups can be illustrated by the semantic analysis of individual word-groups in which the norms of conventional collocability of words seem to be deliberately overstepped. For instance, in the word-group all the sun long we observe a departure from the norm of lexical valency represented by such word-groups as all the day long, all the night long, all the week long, etc. The structural pattern of these word-groups in ordinary usage and the word-group all the sun long is identical. The generalized meaning of the pattern may be described as “a unit of time”. Replacing day, night, week by another noun the sun we do not find any change in the structural meaning of the pattern. The group all the sun long functions semantically as a unit of time. The noun sun, however, included in the group continues to carry its own lexical meaning (not “a unit of time”) which violates the norms of collocability in this word-group. It follows that the meaning of the word-group is derived from the combined lexical meanings of its constituents and is inseparable from the meaning of the pattern of their arrangement. Word-groups may be also analyzed from the point of view of their motivation. Word groups may be described as lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the meaning of its components. The degrees of motivation may be different and range from complete motivation to lack of it. Free word-groups, however, are characterized by complete motivation, as their components carry their individual lexical meanings. Phraseological units are described as non-motivated and are characterized by different degree of idiomaticity.

LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL VALENCY

Two basic linguistic factors which unite words into word-groups and which largely account for their combinability are lexical valency or collocability and grammatical valency. Words are known to be used in lexical context, i.e. in combination with other words. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations, with other words is qualified as its lexical collocability or valency. The range of a potential lexical collocability of words is restricted by the inner structure of the language wordstock, This can be easily observed in the examples, as follows: though the words bend, curl are registered by the dictionaries as synonyms their collocability is different, for they tend to combine with different words, cf: to bend a wire/pipe/stick/head/knees; to curl hair/moustache/lips. There can be cases of synonymic groups where one synonym would have the widest possible range of collocability (like shake which enters combinations with an immense number of words including earth, air, mountains, beliefs, spears, walls, souls, tablecloths, carpets etc.) while another will have the limitation inherent in its semantic structure (like wag - to shake a thing by one end, and confined to rigid group of nouns – tail, finger, head, tongue, beard, chin). There is certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any intentional departure from this norm is qualified as a stylistic device, cf: tons of words, a life ago. Words traditionally collocated in speech tend to make up so called cliches or traditional word combinations. In traditional combinations words retain their full semantic independence although they are limited in their combinative power: to wage a war, to render a service, to make friends. Words in traditional combinations are combined according to the patterns of grammatical structure of the given language. Traditional combinations fall into the following structural types:

1 V+N combinations: deal a blow, bear a grudge, take a fancy etc.

1. V+prep+N: fall into disgrace, take into account, come into being etc.

1. V+Adj: work hard, rain heavily etc.

2. V+Adj: set free, make sure, put right etc.

1.  Adj+N: maiden voyage, dead silence, feline eyes, aquiline nose etc.

1.  N+V: time passes/flies, tastes vary etc.

7. N+prep+N: breach of promise, flow of words, flash of hope, flood of tears etc. Grammatical combinability also tells upon the freedom of bringing words together. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (syntactic) structures is termed grammatical valency. The grammatical valency of words may be different. The range of it is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. This statement, though, does not entitle to say that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is identical. Thus, the two synonyms clever and intelligent are said to posses different grammatical valency as the word clever can fit the syntactic pattern of Adj+prep at+N clever at physics, clever at social sciences, whereas the word intelligent can never be found in exactly the same syntactic pattern. Unlike, frequent departures from the norms of lexical valency, departures from the grammatical valency norms are not admissible unless a speaker purposefully wants to make the word group unintelligible to native speakers.

FUNCTIONAL STYLES

The social context in which the communication is taking place determines the modes of speech. When placed in different situations, people instinctively choose different kinds of words and structures to express their thoughts. The suitability or unsuitability of a word for each particular situation depends on its stylistic characteristics or, in other words, on the functional style it represents. The term functional style is generally accepted in modern linguistics. Professor I. V. Arnold defines it as a system of expressive means peculiar to a specific sphere of communication. By the sphere of communication we mean the circumstances attending the process of speech in each particular case: professional communication, a lecture, an informal talk, a formal letter, an intimate letter, a speech in court, etc. All these circumstances or situations can be roughly classified into two types: formal (a lecture, a speech in court, an official letter, professional communication) and informal (an informal talk, an intimate letter). Accordingly, functional styles are classified into two groups, with further subdivisions depending on different situations.

INFORMAL STYLE

Informal vocabulary is used in one’s immediate circle: family, relatives or friends. One uses informal words when at home or when feeling at home. Informal style is relaxed, free-and-easy, familiar and unpretentious. But it should be pointed out that the informal talk of well-educated people considerably differs than that of the illiterate or the semi-educated; the choice of words with adults is different from the vocabulary of teenagers; people living in the provinces use certain regional words and expressions. Consequently, the choice of words is determined in each particular case not only by an informal (or formal) situation, but also by the speaker’s educational and cultural background, age group, and his occupational and regional characteristics. Informal words and word-groups are traditionally divided into three types: colloquial, slang and dialect words and word-groups.

COLLOQUIALISMS (COLLOQUIAL WORDS)

Among other informal words, colloquialisms are the least exclusive: they are used by everybody, and their sphere of communication is comparatively wide, at least of literary colloquial words. These are informal words that are used in everyday conversational speech both by cultivated and uneducated people of all age groups. The sphere of communication of literary colloquial words also includes the printed page, which shows that the term colloquial is somewhat inaccurate. Vast use of informal words is one of the prominent features of 20th and 21st century English and American literature. It is quite natural that informal words appear in dialogues in which they realistically reflect the speech of modern people:

“You’re at some sort of technical college?” she said to Leo, not looking at him....

“Yes. I hate it though: I’m not good enough at maths. There’s a chap there just down from Cambridge who puts us through it. I can’t keep up. Were you good at maths?”

“Not bad. But I imagine school maths are different.”

“Well, yes, they are. I can’t cope with this stuff at all, it’s the whole way of thinking that’s beyond me... I think I’m going to chuck it and take a job.” (From The Time of the Angels by I. Murdoch)

However, in modern fiction informal words are not restricted to conversation, but frequently appear in descriptive passages as well. In this way the narrative is enjoyed with conversational features:

“Fred Hardy was a bad lot. Pretty women, chemin de fer, and an unlucky knack for backing the wrong horse had landed him in the bankruptcy court by the time he was twenty-five...

...If he thought of his past it was with complacency; he had had a good time, he had enjoyed his ups and downs; and now, with good health and a clear conscience, he was prepared to settle down as a country gentleman, damn it, bring up the kids as kids should be brought up; and when the old buffer who sat for his Constituency pegged out, by George, go into Parliament himself.” (From Rain and Other Short Stories by W. S. Maugham)

Here are some more examples of literary colloquial words. Pal and chum are colloquial equivalents of friend; girl, when used colloquially, denotes a woman of any age; bite and snack stand for meal; hi, hello are informal greetings, and so long a form of parting; start, go on, finish and through are also literary colloquialisms; to have a crush on somebody is a colloquial equivalent of to be in love. A bit (of) and a lot (of) also belong to this group. A considerable number of shortenings are found among words of this type: pram, exam, fridge, flu, zip, movie. Phrasal verbs are also numerous among colloquialisms: put up, put over, make up, make out, turn in, etc. Literary colloquial words are to be distinguished from familiar colloquial and low colloquial. The borderline between the literary and familiar colloquial is not always clearly marked. Yet the circle of speakers using familiar colloquial is more limited: these words are used mostly by the young and the semi-educated. This vocabulary group closely verges on slang and has something of its coarse flavour: doc (for doctor), hi (for how do you do), ta-ta (for good-bye), goings-on (for behaviour, usually with a negative connotation), to to pick up smb. (for make a quick and easy acquaintance), go on with you (for let me alone), shut up (for keep silent), beat it (for go away). Low colloquial is defined by G. P. Krapp as uses characteristic of the speech of persons who may be broadly described as uncultivated. This group is stocked with words of illiterate English.

SLANG

The Oxford English Dictionary defines slang as language of a highly colloquial style, considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense. Here is another definition of slang by the famous English writer G. K. Chesterton: The one stream of poetry which in constantly flowing is slang. Every day some nameless poet weaves some fairy tracery of popular language... Slang is metaphor, and all metaphor is poetry....The world of slang is a kind of topsy-turvydom of poetry, full of blue moons and white elephants, of men losing their heads, and men whose tongues run away with them - a whole chaos of fairy tales. All or most slang words are current words whose meanings have been metaphorically shifted. Each slang metaphor is rooted in a joke, but not in a kind or amusing joke. This is the criterion for distinguishing slang from colloquialisms: most slang words are metaphors and jocular, often with a coarse, mocking, cynical colouring. This is one of the common objections against slang: a person using a lot of slang seems to be sneering and jeering at everything under the sun. This objection is psychological. There are also linguistic ones. H. McKnight notes that originating as slang expressions often do, in an insensibility to the meaning of legitimate words, the use of slang checks an acquisition of a command over recognized modes of expression... and must result in atrophy of the faculty of using language. W. Fowler states that as style is the great antiseptic, so slang is the great corrupting matter, it is perishable, and infects what is round it. McKnight also notes that no one capable of good speaking or good writing is likely to be harmed by the occasional employment of slang, provided that he is conscious of the fact...

People use slang for a number of reasons: to be picturesque, arresting, striking and, above all, different from others; to avoid the tedium of outmoded hackneyed common words, to demonstrate one’s spiritual independence and daring, to sound moden and up-to-date. It doesn’t mean that all these aims are achieved by using slang. Nor are they put in so many words by those using slang on the conscious level. But these are the main reasons for using slang as explained by modern psychologists and linguists. The circle of users of slang is more narrow than that of colloquialisms. It is mainly used by the young and uneducated. Yet, slang’s colourful and humorous quality makes it catching, so that a considerable part of slang may become accepted by nearly all the groups of speakers.

DIALECT WORDS

H. W. Fowler defines a dialect as a variety of a language which prevails in a dis­trict, with local peculiarities of vocabulary, pronunciation and phrase. England is a small country, yet it has many dialects which have their own distinctive features (e. g. the Lancashire, Dorsetshire, Norfolk dialects). So dialects are regional forms of English. Standard English is defined by the Random House Dictionary as the English language as it is written and spoken by literate people in both formal and informal usage and that is universally current while incorporating regional differences. Dialectal peculiarities, especially those of vocabulary, are constantly being incorporated into everyday colloquial speech or slang. From these levels they can be transferred into the common stock, i.e. words which are not stylistically marked and a few of them even into formal speech and into the literary language.

FORMAL STYLE

Formal style is restricted to formal situations. In general, formal words fall into two (words associated with professional communication and a less exclusive group of so-called learned words.

LEARNED WORDS

These words are mainly associated with the printed page. It is in this vocabulary stratum that poetry and fiction find their main resources. The term learned is not precise and does not adequately describe the exact characteristics of these words. A some what out-of-date term for the same category of words is bookish. The term learned includes several heterogeneous subdivisions of words. We find here numerous words that are used in scientific prose and can be identified by their dry, matter-of-fact flavour, e.g. compile, experimental, heterogeneous, homogeneous, conclusive etc. To this group also belongs so-called officialese (cf. with the Rus. канцеляризмы). These are the words of the official, bureaucratic language: assist (for help), proceed (for go), approximately (for about), sufficient (for enough), attired (for dressed), inquire (for ask).

Probably the most interesting subdivision of learned words is represented by the words found in descriptive passages of fiction. These words, which may be called literary, also have a particular flavour of their own, usually described as refined. They are mostly polysyllabic words drawn from the Romance languages and, though fully adapted to the English phonetic system, some of them continue to sound singularly foreign. They also seem to retain an aloofness associated with the lofty contexts in which they have been used for centuries. Their very sound seems to create complex and solemn associations, e.g. sentiment, fascination, meditation, felicity, elusive, cordial, illusionary. There is one further subdivision of learned words: modes of poetic diction. These stand close to the previous group many words from which, in fact, belong to both these categories. Yet, poetic words have a further characteristic – a lofty, high-flown, sometimes archaic, colouring: “…constancy lives in realms above; And life is thorny; and youth is vain; And to be wroth with one we love, Doth work like madness in the brain...” (Coleridge)

Though learned words are mainly associated with the printed page, this is not exclusively so. Any educated English-speaking individual is sure to use many learned words not only in his formal letters and professional communication but also in his everyday speech. It is true that sometimes such uses strike a definitely incongruous note as in the following extract: “You should find no difficulty in obtaining a secretarial post in the city.” Carel said “obtaining a post” and not “getting a job”. It was part of a bureaucratic manner which, Muriel noticed, he kept reserved for her.” (From The Time of the Angels by I. Murdoch)

Yet, generally speaking, educated people in both modern fiction and real life is learned words quite naturally and their speech is certainly the richer for it. On the other hand, excessive use of learned elements in conversational speech presents grave hazards. Utterances overloaded with such words have pretensions of refinement and; elegance but achieve the exact opposite verging on the absurd and ridiculous. Writers use this phenomenon for stylistic purposes. When a character in a book or in a play uses too many learned words, the obvious inappropriateness of his speech in an informal situation produces a comic effect: “The story of your romantic origin as relate” to me by mamma, with unpleasing comments, has naturally stirred the deepest fibres of my nature. Your Christian name has an irresistible fascination. The simplicity of your nature makes you exquisitely incomprehensible to me...” (Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest).

Eliza Doolitfle in Pygmalion by B. Shaw engaging in traditional English small tall answers the question “Will it rain, do you think?” in the following way: ”The shallow depression in the west of these islands is likely to move slowly in an easterly direction. There are no indications of any great change in the barometrical situation.” However any suggestion that learned words are suitable only for comic purposes; would be quite wrong. It is in this vocabulary stratum that writers and poets find their most vivid paints and colours, and not only their humorous effects. Here is an extract from Iris Murdoch describing a summer evening: “... A bat had noiselessly appropriated the space between, a flittering weaving almost substanceless fragment of the invading dark.... A collared dove groaned once in the final light. A pink rose reclining upon the big box hedge glimmered with contained electric luminosity. A blackbird, trying to metamorphose itself into a nightingale, began a long passionate complicated song.” (From The Sacred and Profane Love Machine by I. Murdoch)

ARCHAIC AND OBSOLETE WORDS

These words stand close to the learned words, particularly to the modes of poetic dictions. Learned words and archaisms are both associated with the printed page. Yet many learned words may also be used in conversational situations. This cannot happen with archaisms, which are invariably restricted to the printed page. These words are moribund, already partly or fully out of circulation, rejected by the living language! Their last refuge is in historical novels (whose authors use them to create a particular period atmosphere) and, of course, in poetry which is rather conservative in its choice of words. Thou and thy, aye (yes) and nay (no) are certainly archaic and long since rejected by common usage, yet poets use them even today. We also find the same four words and many other archaisms among dialectisms, which is quite natural, as dialects are also conservative and retain archaic words and structures. Further examples of archaisms are: morn (for morning), eve (for evening), damsel (for girl), errant (for wandering, e. g. errant knights), etc. Sometimes, an archaic word may undergo a sudden revival. So, the formerly archaic Hit (for relatives; one’s family) is now current in American usage. The terms archaic and obsolete are used more or less indiscriminately by some authors. Others make a distinction between them using the term obsolete for words which have completely gone out of use. The Random House Dictionary defines an obsolete word like one no longer in use, esp. out of use for at least a century, whereas an archaism is referred to as current in an earlier time but rare in present usage. It should be pointed out that the borderline between obsolete and archaic is vague and uncertain, and in many cases it is difficult to decide to which of the groups this or that word belongs. There is a further term for words which are no longer in use: historisms. By this we mean words denoting objects and phenomena which are, things of the past and no longer exist.

PROFESSIONAL TERMINOLOGY

Hundreds of thousands of words belong to special scientific, professional or trade terminological systems and are not used or even understood by people outside the particular speciality. Every field of modern activity has its specialized vocabulary. There is a special medical vocabulary, and similarly special terminologies for psychology, botany, music, linguistics, teaching methods and many others.

Term is a word or a word-group which is specifically employed by a particular branch of science, technology, trade or the arts to convey a concept peculiar to this particular activity. There are several controversial problems in the field of terminology. The first is the puzzling question of whether a term loses its terminological status when it comes into common usage. There are linguists in whose opinion terms are only those words which have retained their exclusiveness and are not known or recognized outside their specific sphere. There is yet another point of view, according to which any terminological system is supposed to include all the words and word-groups conveying concept peculiar to a particular branch of knowledge, regardless of their exclusiveness. Modern research of various terminological systems has shown that there is no impenetrable wall between terminology and the general language system. To the contrary, terminologies seem to obey the same rules and laws as other vocabulary strata. Therefore, exchange between terminological systems and the common vocabulary is quite normal, and it would be wrong to regard a term; as something special and standing apart. Two other controversial problems deal with polysemy and synonymy. According to some linguists, an ideal term should be monosemantic (i.e. it should have only one meaning). Polysemantic terms may lead to misunderstanding, and that is a serious shortcoming in professional communication. This requirement seems quite reasonable, yet facts of the language do not meet it. There are, in actual fact, numerous polysemantic terms. The same is true about synonymy in terminological systems. There are scholars who insist that terms should not have synonyms because, consequently, scientists and other specialists would name the same objects and phenomena in their field by different terms and would not be able to come to any agreement. This may be true. But, in fact, terms do possess synonyms. In painting, the same term colour has several synonyms in both its meanings: hue, shade, tint, tinge in the first meaning (колір) and paint, tint, dye in the second (фарба).

BASIC VOCABULARY

These words are stylistically neutral, and, in this respect, opposed to formal and informal words described above. Their stylistic neutrality makes it possible to use them in all kinds of situations, both formal and informal, in verbal and written communication. Certain of the stylistically marked vocabulary strata are, in a way, exclusive: professional terminology is used mostly by representatives of the professions; dialects are regional; slang is favoured mostly by the young and the uneducated. Not so basic vocabulary. These words are used every day, everywhere and by everybody, regardless of profession, occupation, educational level, age group or geographical location. These are words without which no human communication would be possible as they denote objects and phenomena of everyday importance, e.g. house, bread, summer, winter, child, mother, green, difficult, to go, to stand, etc. The basic vocabulary is the central group of the vocabulary, its historical foundation and living core. That is why words of this stratum show a considerably greater stability in comparison with words of the other strata, especially informal. Basic vocabulary words can be recognised not only by their stylistic neutrality but, also, by entire lack of other connotations (i.e. attendant meanings). Their meanings are broad; general and directly convey the concept, without supplying any additional information. T
he basic vocabulary and the stylistically marked strata of the vocabulary do not exist independently but are closely interrelated. Most stylistically marked words have their neutral counterparts in the basic vocabulary. Terms are an exception in this respect. On the other hand, colloquialisms may have their counterparts among learned words, most slang has counterparts both among colloquialisms and learned words. Archaisms, naturally, have their modern equivalents at least in some of the other groups.

Table 1 gives some examples of such synonyms belonging to different stylistic strata, Table 2 sums up the description of the stylistic strata of English vocabulary.

49