Reading:

1. Crystal D. English vocabulary. The Structure of the Lexicon: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language / David Crystal. – Cambridge University Press, 1995. – 490 p.

2. Дегтярь И. Г. Имена собственные, употребляемые как нарицательные в современном английском языке: [пособие по лексикологии англ. яз. для студ. языковых вузов] / Дегтярь И. Г., Прохорова О. Н., Дворник О. Д. — Белгород, 2000. — 146 с. — (Белгородский гос. ун-т).

3. Каращук П.М. Словообразование английского языка / П.М. Каращук. – М.: ВШ, 1977. – 303 с.

4. Кубрякова Е.С. Язык и знание: На пути получения знаний о языке: части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. Роль языка в познании мира / Елена Самойловна Кубрякова. — М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004. — 555с.

5. Левицький А.Е. Зіставлення функціональних особливостей систем номінативних одиниць англійської й української мов / Андрій Едуардович Левицький // Вісн. Житомир. держ. пед. ун-ту. — 2001. — N 8. — С. 101-105.

6. Реформаторский А.А. Введение в языковедение: [под ред. А.А. Виноградова] / А.А. Реформаторский. – М.: “Аспект Пресс”, 1999. – 536 c.

7. Семчинський С.В. Шляхи збагачення лексики / Станіслав Володимирович Семчинський. – Львів: в-во Львівского університету, 1963. – 132 с .

8. Уфимцева А.А. Лексическая номинация: [отв. ред. Серебренников, Уфимцева] // Языковая номинация / Анна Анфилофьевна Уфимцева. – М.: Наука, 1977. – с. 5-85.

Electronic Resources:

9. Chicago Manual of Style [Електронний ресурс]. – http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/PossessivesandAttributives/PossessivesandAttributives07.html

10. Grammar [Електронний ресурс]. – http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/compounds.htm

11. The Free Dictionary [Електронний ресурс]. – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pejoration

WORD-COMBINATION:

FREE COMBINATIONS, COLLOCATIONS, LEXICAL PHRASES, CATCH PHRASES, QUOTATIONS

Free combination / Collocation / Collocational restriction / Lexical phrases / Catch phrases / Quotations

A free combination is a sequence of lexemes governed by factors which are controlled by an individual speaker, and not by tendencies in the language as a whole. For example, the sentence I like … gives us no clue about which lexeme will come next. Almost anything that exists can be liked. It is up to the individual to choose. In such sequences as I like potatoes or I like films there is no mutual expectancy between the items. Thousands of lexical juxtapositions in everyday speech and writing fall into this category.

Collocation is defined as a sequence of words or terms which co-occur more often than would be expected by chance (this definition was first used within the area of corpus linguistics).

If the expression is heard often, the words become 'glued' together in our minds. 'Crystal clear', 'middle management', 'nuclear family', and 'cosmetic surgery' are examples of collocated pairs of words. In collocations there are certain restrictions on how words can be used together, for example which prepositions are used with particular verbs, or which verbs and nouns are used together.

“There is a certain mutual expectancy between the main lexemes in the sentence It writhed on the ground in excruciating pain. Our linguistic intuition tells us that excruciating tends to occur with pain, agony, and a few other lexemes, and not with joy, ignorance, and most other nouns in the language. Likewise, writhe and agony commonly co-occur, as do writhe and ground. ‘Horizontal¹¹’ expectancies of this kind are known as collocations, or selectional restrictions. Excruciating, we can say, ‘selects’ or ‘collocates with’ pain” (Crystal, 1995, p. 160).

Most lexemes enter into many more predictable contexts, for example there are nearly 150 predictable contexts for the word line (Crystal, 1995, p. 161). Traditional dictionary entries do not give this kind of information.

All that is required, for a sequence of lexemes to be described as a collocation, is “for one item to 'call up' another, to some extent, in the mind of a native speaker” (Crystal, 1995, p. 160). Sometimes the predictability is weak: heavy collocates with quite a diverse range of items (loss, wear, traffic, burden, defeat, etc.), as does line, mentioned before.

Sometimes the predictability is strong: auspicious collocates only with occasion, and a few other closely-related items (event, moment, etc.); circuit collocates with break/broken, close(d), integrated, printed, short, make, a few figurative expressions to do with travelling (e.g. lecture, rodeo, talk-show), but little more. However, when sequences are so highly predictable that they allow little or no change in their lexical elements (as with spick and span or run amok), they are usually referred to as fixed expressions, phraseologisms or idioms, and require a separate analysis.

Here are some more examples of collocations: we can say highly sophisticated, and we can say extremely happy; both adverbs have the same intensifying lexical functions, however, they are not interchangeable. Still, other adverbs can replace both highly and extremely, very is one of them. Another example is the different adjectives that are used to describe a good-looking man and a good-looking woman. We talk of a beautiful woman and of a handsome man, but rarely of a beautiful man or a handsome woman¹².

We talk of high mountains and tall trees, but not usually of tall mountains and high trees. Similarly a man can be tall but never high (except in the sense of being intoxicated!), whereas a ceiling can only be high, not tall. A window can be both tall or high, but a tall window is not the same as a high window. We get old and tired, but we go bald or grey. We get sick but we fall ill. A big house, a large house and a great house have the same meaning, but a great man is not the same as a big man or a large man. You can make a big mistake or a great mistake, but you cannot make a large mistake. You can be a little sad but not a little happy. We say very pleased and very tiny, but we do not say very delighted or very huge.

All mature native speakers use such sequences as commit a murder and not, say, commit a task even though the sense of 'carry out' would be applicable in the latter case. And everyone says monumental ignorance, not monumental brilliance.

Collocations cannot be predicted from a knowledge of the world. Knowledge of collocations is vital for the competent use of a language: a grammatically correct sentence will stand out as 'awkward' if collocational preferences are violated.

Unlike the majority of idioms, collocations are subject to syntactic modification. For example, we can say effective writing and write effectively.

Collocational restriction is a linguistic term which refers to the fact that in certain two-word phrases the meaning of an individual word is restricted to that particular phrase. For instance: the adjective dry can only mean 'not sweet' in combination with the noun wine.

Another example involves collocations with white: white wine, white coffee, white noise, white man. All four instances of white can be said to be idiomatic because in combination with certain nouns the meaning of white changes. In none of the examples does white have its usual meaning. Instead, in the examples above it means 'yellowish', 'brownish', 'containing many frequencies with about equal amplitude', and 'pinkish' or 'pale brown', respectively.

Lexical phrases (sentence stems, composite forms) are “the prefabricated components, chunks of language” (Crystal, 1995, p. 163) used to make texts coherent. Hundreds of such phrases exist, of varying length and complexity, such as it seems to me..., would you mind..., on the one hand... on the other hand..., and... lived happily ever after. Some resemble formulae: let me start by Xing a/the Y (e.g. making the poin­t, asking a question) or the Xer you Y, the Aer you B (e.g. the longer you wait­ the angrier you get). Such phrases are used frequently in both speech and writing, but they are especially important in conversation, where they perform a number of roles – for instance, expressing agreement, summing up an argument, introducing an example, or changing a topic.

A catch phrase is “a phrase which is so appealing that people take pleasure in using it” (Crystal, 1995, p. 178). The richest sources of catch phrases are cinema, television and mass media. In some cases, a phrase comes and goes within a few weeks. More usually, it stays for a few years. And, every now and then, it stays in use for decades, at least among older people. “It is even possible for catch phrases to be so useful that they become permanent additions to the language, in the form of rather self-conscious and often jocular expressions whose origins people may have long forgotten” (Crystal, 1995, p. 178). Anyone who says (or adapts) “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do”, “They went thataway”, or “This town isn't big enough for both of us” is 'recalling' the catch phrases of a generation of cowboy Western films. Now several decades old – though it is unlikely that anyone could now recollect where they first heard them.

Catch phrases, typically, have a clearly identifiable source. However, to identify them, we need to be part of the culture which gave rise to them. Here are some examples (sources given in brackets): “­What's up, doc?” (Bugs Bunny); “Here's another fine mess you've gotten me into.” (Oliver Hardy from Laurel and Hardy); “You cannot be serious!” (John McEnroe); “­Here's looking at you, kid.” (Humpfrey Bogart, in Casablanca); “May the Force be with you!” (various characters in Star Wars).

A quota­tion is an exact reproduction of somebody’s words (usually written). “Anything which someone has said or written can be a quotation, but the term usually refers to those instances which have become 'famous' over the years” (Crystal, 1995, p.184). Both ”To be or not to be” and “Let me see one” are extracts from Hamlet, but only the former has come to be treated as quotation.

It can be useful to distinguish quotations from catch phrases. By definition, the utterances which fall within both of these categories have impact and are memorable, and most can be traced to a specific source. Catch phrases are, indeed, a species of quotation. But there are important differences. Catch phrases tend to be of spoken origin, very short, subject to variation, relatively trivial in subject matter, and popular for only a short period. Quotations tend to be of written origin, indeterminate in length, highly restricted in the contexts where they may be used, semantically more profound, and capable of standing the test of time. There is a colloquial tone to the former, and a literary tone to the latter. There is no identity.

Many quotations have become so well-known that they have entered the standard language, with their origins all but forgotten. How many now know that the best-laid schemes of mice and men is a quotation from Robert Butns' poem “To a Mouse”¹³, or that all hell broke loose is from Milton's “Paradise Lost”? Several Shakespearian and Biblical quotations have entered the language in this way.

Quite often, a quotation is adapted in the process. An example is “Ours not to reason why”, which is an adaptation of “Theirs not to reason why”, from Tennyson's “The Charge of the Light Brigade” (1854).

⁂