Lecture 1

Lexicology, a branch of linguistics, is the study of words.

The term “lexicology” is composed of two Greek morphemes – lexic – word, phrase
&logos which denotes learning a department of knowledge, science. Thus the literal
meaning of the term “lexicology” is “the science of the word”. The basic task of
lexicology as a branch of linguistics is to study and make systematic description of
vocabulary in respect to its origin, development and its current use.
The term “vocabulary” is used to denote system of words and word-groups the
language possesses. Thus, lexicology is concerned with words, variable word-groups,
phraseological units and morphemes which make up words.
Contrastive Linguistics intends to reveal the featuresoflanguage bringing it into
correlation with other languages, without establishing the priority of one language over the
other.
The objectof Contrastive Linguistics investigations is a parallel comparison of two or
more linguistic systems at a synchronous level.
Contrastive Lexicology as a Cross-Linguistic Discipline.
Contrastive Lexicology is a new branch of Contrastive Linguistics that aims to
perform a contrastive description of lexico-semantic systems of languages that are
compared. A complete contrastive analysis includes the comparison at all levels ofthe
lexico-semantic system (the level of meanings, designations, lexico-semantic groups,
lexico-semantic fields, etc.).
The relationsbetween lexical units of the contrastedlanguagesmay be:
paradigmaticrelations(relations between words and groups of words based onthe
similaritiesand differencesof their meanings); syntagmatic relations (linear, contextual
relationsof words).
The syntagmatic aspectaims at establishingsimilarities and differences in the words’
collocations, i.e. relations words revealwithin a certain speech segment –word-
combination or sentence. For example,the English wordlongis equivalent to the Ukrainian
word довгий, however,when collocating with the word face inlong face, it conforms toa
different wordin Ukrainian, cf.: похмуре обличчя.
On the syntagmatic level, the semantic structure of the word is analysed in its linear
relationships with neighbouring words in connected speech. In other words, the semantic
characteristics of the word are observed, described and studied on the basis of its typical
contexts.
When used in actual speech the word undergoes certain modifications in one of its
forms. The system showing a word in all its word-forms is called a paradigm. The lexical
meaning of a word is the same throughout the paradigm. The grammatical meaning varies
from one form to another.
There are two approaches to the paradigm: as a system of forms of one word
revealing the differences and relationships between them, e.g. to see – saw – seen – seeing.
In abstraction from concrete words the paradigm is treated as a pattern on which
every word of one part of speech models its forms thus serving to distinguish one part of
speech from another. On the paradigmatic level, the word is studied in its relationships
with other words in the vocabulary system. So, a word may be studied in comparison with
other words of similar meaning (synonyms), opposite meaning (antonyms), of different
stylistic characteristics (man – chap – bloke – guy). Main lexicological problems
 The problem of word-building is associated with prevailing morphological word-
structures and with processes of making new words.
Modern approaches to this problem are characterized by the levels of study:
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic
On the syntagmatic level, the sematic structure of the word is analyZed in its linear
relationships with neighbouring words in connected speech. (CONTEXTUALLY)
On the paradigmatic level, the word is studied in its relationships with other words in
the vocabulary system (a word may be studied in comparison with other words).

Word as a Primary Unit of Contrastive Analysis

The word is a speech unit used for the purposes of human communication, materially
representing a group of sounds, possessing a meaning, susceptible to grammatical
employment and characterized by formal and semantic unity.
It should be pointed out that the contrasted words, even being characterized by the
same criteria, might possess different features, constituting the category of contrastivity of
languages that are compared.
In this way, the phonological criterion manifests itself in the accentuation differences,
the accent being a feature that stands for the category of contrastivity. English and
Ukrainian words, though being identical in form, may revealcontrasts in meaning because
of theword-stress, cf.: `лікарський – medical, doctor’s vs.лі`карський–medicinal (herb,
plant); `present – подарунокvs.pre`sent – дарувати.
The feature that determines the morphologicalcriterion of aword in the contrasted
languages is its formal unity. From this viewpoint, the category of contrastivity manifests
itself in theword’s orthography.
The semantic criterion takes into accountaword’s two-facedness(the
expressionplane and the contentplane), the latter standing forthe word’s onomasiological
and semasiological criteria.Withinthe onomasiologicalcriterion, it is the inner-form of
awordthat counts asthe category of contrastivity. Being “the image of a name”, the inner-
form represents the way the realityobject is designated in the contrasted languages, cf.:
мати-й-мачуха(lit.‘mother and stepmother’)vs.coltsfoot(lit.‘копитце лошати’).
Methods inContrastive Lexicology
Contrastive Lexicology resorts to numerous methods, apt to provide with contrastive
analysis of words in the English and Ukrainian languages.
ContrastiveAnalysis. Its goal is supposed to establish similarities and differences in
the lexicons of the English and Ukrainian languages. This type of analysis is considered
the main one, as it reveals the conceptual entities that underlie the contents of lexical
items, and those areas of language cognition that represent the national worldview, the
specificities of ethnic mentality, and the characteristics of cognitive abilities which belong
to different linguistic communities.
Distributional Analysis. This method of analysis establishes the characteristics of
the positions that lexical items occupy in a text.
I treated him to an ice-cream(verb + pronoun + preposition to + noun)–to treat
somebody to somethingvs. Я пригостив його морозивом(verb + pronoun + noun) –
частуватикогось чимось;W e treat them kindly (verb + pronoun + adverb)–to treat
somebody in some mannervs. Ми ставимося до них добре (verb+ prepositionдо +
pronoun+ adverb) –ставитися до когось якимось чином.
 Lecture 2
Morphology. Word-Formation
A great many words can consist of smaller meaningful structural units which are
called morphemes (morphē – form). From the semantic point of view all morphemes are
subdivided into 2 large classes: root morphemes (roots) and affixational morphemes
(affixes). The root is the lexical nucleus of a word. It is common to a set of words that
make up a lexical word-cluster, e.g. act in act, actor, action, active, inactive; mean in
mean, meaning, meaningful, meaningless, etc. There exist many roots which coincide with
root-words, e.g. man, son, desk, tree, black, red, see, look, etc.
The affixes, in their turn, fall into prefixes which precede the root (unhappy,
dissatisfied, rewrite, discover, impossible, mistreat, mistake) and suffixes which follow the
root (friendship, peaceful, worker, slowly, selfish, dusty).
Words which consist of a root and an affix (or several affixes) are called derived
words or derivatives and are produced by the process of word-building known as
affixation (or derivation).
The part of a word consisting of a root and an affix is called a stem. In English words
stern and root often coincide. Stems that coincide with roots are known as simple stems,
e.g. boy’s, trees, reads etc. Stems that contain one or more affixes are derived stems, e.g.
teacher’s, governments, unremarkable etc.
From the structural point of view morphemes fall into 3 types: free, bound and semi-
bound morphemes.
A free morpheme can stand alone as a word, e.g. friendly, friendship, unfriendly
(friend).Син, дощ, край, газ, пень, річ, піч, вогонь.
Bound morphemes occur only as constituent parts of words, e.g. freedom, greatly,
poetic, depart, enlarge, dishonest, misprint, conceive, deceive, receive, resist, etc. Вчитель,
дощик, зробити, висміяти.
Semi-bound morphemes can function both as affixes and as free morphemes (i.e.
words), e.g. after, half, man, well, self vs. after-thought, half-baked, half-naked, chairman,
footman, well-known, well-informed, himself, oneself.Понад – понаднормово, після –
післямова.
English words fall into 4 main structural types:
1) simple words (root words) which have only a root morpheme in their structure, e.g.
man, sky, pen, go, look, find, bright, ling, far, back, etc.;
2) derived words (affixational derivatives) which consist of a root and one or more
affixes, e.g. joyful, retake, undo, childhood, disagreement, reproduce, indifferent
etc.;
3) compound words (compounds) in which 2 or more stems are combined into a
lexical unit, e.g. classroom, whitewash, salesgirl, blackbird, forget-me-not,
woman-doctor;
4) derivational compounds in which phrase components are joined together by means
of compounding and affixation, e.g. long-legged, black-eyed, bald-headed, strong-
willed.
Word-formation is the process of creating new words from the material available in
the word-stock according to certain structural and semantic patterns specific for the given
language. Various types of word-formation in Modern English possess different degrees of
productivity. Some of them are highly-productive (affixation, conversion, compounding,
shortening); others are semi-productive (back-formation, sound-imitation); and non-
productive (sound interchange, change of stress).
Types of Word-Formation and their Contrastive Description
The main units of word-building are derived words, or derivatives. Derived words are
secondary linguistic units that are structurally and semantically dependent on some other
simpler lexical units (derivational words) that motivate them, cf.: use > useful vs. користь
> корисний. Both derived and derivational words are not totally identical. There exist
structural similarities and differences between them. The relations between these units are
called the relations of word-building derivativeness.
Derivation (affixation) is a type of word-formation in which a word is derived from
another word by adding an affix. Derivation includes suffixation and prefixation.
Suffixation underlies the formation of new words with the help of suffixes, the latter being
affixes which follow the material (root morpheme) they are added to, cf.: нов + -ач + -ок
vs. green + -er; trick + -ery vs. шахрай + -ство.
In English and Ukrainian, suffixes may be compared based on their origin and
meaning. By origin, the contrasted suffixes are divided into native and borrowed ones. In
English, native suffixes are primarily Germanic in origin, cf.: noun-suffixes: -er (rider), -
ness (goodness), -ie (birdie), -hood (manhood), -ship (friendship), -yer (lawyer), -th
(breadth), -dom (kingdom), -ing (feeling), -y (aunty); adjective-suffixes: -ful (hopeful), -
less (hopeless), -ish (greyish), -like (warlike), -ly (womanly); -some (troublesome), -y
(mighty); adverb-suffixes: -ly (newly), -wise (crosswise); -ward(s) (backwards); verb-
suffixes: -en (blacken). In Ukrainian, native suffixes are primarily of Proto-Slavic origin,
cf.: noun suffixes: -ин(я) (гординя), -знь (приязнь), -ств(о) (багатство), -тв(а)
(битва), -тель (мислитель); adjective-suffixes: -ав (кульгавий), -яв (кучерявий), -
езн(ий) (величезний); participial-suffixes: -ящ (роботящий), -м(ий) (рухомий).
Both English and Ukrainian borrowed suffixes are mainly of Romanic and Greek
origins:
A. English: a) noun-suffixes of Romanic origin: -ee, -ey, -ess, -let, -ry, -ery, -tion, - -
ent (student), -ice (service), -ion (union), -ence (existence), -ment (amazement), -mony
(ceremony), -or (actor), -ory (dormitory), -eer (engineer), -o(u)r (behaviour), -ty (liberty),
-ure (culture), -ate (demostrate); of Greek origin: -ist (artist), -asm (enthusiasm), -ics
(physics), -ine (heroine), -y (academy); b) adjective-suffixes of Romanic origin: -able
(eatable), -al (comical), -an (Roman), -ean (European), -ary (contrary), -ese (Japanese), -
esque (picturesque), -ic (Celtic), -ous (glorious); c) verb-suffixes of Romanic origin: -ate
(graduate), -fy (terrify); of Greek origin: -ize, -ise (organize).
B. Ukrainian: a) noun suffixes of Greek origin: -ад(а) (олімпіада), ид(а)
(панахида), -ід(а) (піраміда), -іт(ит) (соломіт); of Romanic origin: -ант (лейтенант), -
ація (інформація), -ент (студент), -ер (шофер), -ій (мораторій), -ист/-іст (медаліст), -
изм/-ізм/-їзм (нігілізм), -он (батальйон), -тор (диктор), -ум (акваріум), -ус (вірус); of
Turkic origin: -ак (козак), -як (маяк), -ан (отаман), -лик (ярлик), -ун (кавун), -ча
(саранча); b) adjective suffixes of Romanic origin: -аль(ний) (універсальний).
In the contrasted languages suffixes may also be compared by their meanings, i.e.
from the viewpoint of the functions they perform in repatterning the derivational bases of
the words. A suffix in the source language may have several equivalents in the target one
and vice versa. The list of suffixes in both languages is quite numerous; therefore, we shall
focus on those, correlating with some major concepts:
 agent suffixes, cf.: -er (farmer, miner, teacher, singer, milker) vs. -ер (фермер), -
ник (гірник), -тель (вчитель), -ак (співак); or (actor, director) vs. -ор (актор), -ер
(режисер); -ent (student) vs. -ент (студент); -ant (merchant, pedant) vs. -ач (позивач), -
ець (купець, торговець); -eer (auctioneer) vs. -ер (аукціонер), etc.;
 suffixes, denoting abstract notions, cf.: -ness (goodness) vs. -т(а) (доброта); -ty
(fraternity, cruelty) vs. -ство (братерство), -ість (жортокість);
 suffixes, denoting the object of an action (the one to whom the action is done), cf.:
-ee (employee, refugee, trustee, assignee) vs. -ець (службовець), -ач (утікач), -ун
(опікун), -ник (правонаступник);
diminutive suffixes, cf.: -et (eaglet, booklet, kinglet) vs. -ятк (орлятко), -ечк
(книжечка), -ок (царьок); -ette (kitchenette) vs. -оньк (кухонька); -y/-ie (sissy, birdie,
auntie) vs. -ичк (сестричка), -ечк (пташечка), -оньк (тітонька); -ling (duckling, firstling,
underling) vs. еня (каченя), -ок (первісток), -от (дрібнота); -ock (hillock) -ик (горбик);
gender suffixes (feminine), сf.: -ess (actress, tigress, poetess, goddess) vs. -ис
(актриса), -иц (тигриця), -ес (поетеса), -ин (богиня); ine (heroine) vs. -їн (героїня).
The contrastive analysis of suffixes according to their meaning reveals the following
types of correspondence in English and Ukrainian:
a) totally equivalent suffixes, cf.: goatling vs. козенятко – the meaning of
“diminutiveness”; ignorance vs. неуцтво – the meaning of “quality”; reading vs.
читання – the meaning of “act, art of doing”;
b) partially equivalent suffixes, cf.: -ish (greyish) – the meaning of“to some degree;
partly; quite” vs. -уват (сіруватий) – the meaning of “deficient degree of manifestation
(of a feature)”;
c) non-equivalent suffixes, cf.: hopeless vs. безнадійний; каменюка vs. large stone.
Prefixation underlies the formation of new words with the help of prefixes, the latter
being affixes which precede the material (root morpheme) they are added to, cf.: post- +
war vs. після- + воєнний; пере- + витрата vs. over- + expenditure.
In English and Ukrainian, prefixes, like the suffixes, may be compared based on their
origin (native or borrowed) and meaning. The native prefixes of Germanic origin found
in English are: a- (arise), after- (afternoon), for- (forsay), fore- (forehead), forth-
(forthright), in- (insight), mis- (mistreat), out- (outside), over- (overtake), un- (unable). In
Ukrainian we find the native prefixes of Old Slavic origin: воз- (воздвигнути), пре-
(премудрий), со- (соратник). The correlations between these prefixes are not numerous,
cf.: предтеча vs. forerunner; forefather vs. предок.
The borrowed prefixes:
A. English: a) of Romanic origin: ex- (ex-minister), extra- (extraordinary), in-
(incapable), il- (illogical), ir- (irregular), inter- (international), non- (nonsense), op-
(oppress), post- (postpone), pre- (prepare), re- (rewrite), retro- (retrospective), sub-
(submarine), super- (supernatural), trans- (transcontinental), ultra- (ultraviolet);
b) of Greek origin: a- (atheist), amphi- (amphitheatre), anti- (antithesis), ant-
(antarctic), dis- (dissyllable), di- (diphthong), poly- (polyglot).
B. Ukrainian: a) of Romanic origin: віце- (віце-президент), де- (демобілізація),
екс- (екс-президент), ім- (імміграція), інтер- (інтервенція), контр- (контррозвідка),
ре- (реконструкція), суб- (субкультура), ультра- (ультрафіолетовий);
b) of Greek origin: анти- (антисептика), ев- (евфонія).
Considering the onomasiological aspect of comparison, the prefixes in English and
Ukrainian are used to denote:
 closeness, proximity, cf.: су- (сузір’я) vs. con- (constellation); ad- (admixture) vs.
су- (суміш);
priority, cf.: перед- (передмова, передвісник) vs. fore- (foreword, forerunner);
ante- (antechamber) vs. перед- (передпокій); pre- (pre-war) vs. перед- (передвоєнний);
negation and opposition, cf.: non- (non-believer) vs. не- (невіруючий); не-
(нездатний) vs. in- (incapable); counter- (counterattack) vs. контр- (контратака); anti-
(antipersonnel) vs. проти- (протипіхотний); dis- (disconnect) vs. роз- (роз’єднувати);
failure, cf.: mis- (miscount) vs. про- (прорахунок).
The contrastive analysis of prefixes according to their meaning reveals the following
types of correspondence in English and Ukrainian: a) totally equivalent prefixes, cf.:
foresee vs. передбачати – the meaning of “before”; intergalactic vs. міжзоряний – the
meaning of “between”; sub-species vs. підвид – the meaning of “a smaller part of a larger
whole”; b) partially equivalent prefixes, cf.: су- (супротивник) – the meaning of
“closeness; proximity” vs. op- (opponent) – the meaning of “against”; перед-
(передполярний) – the meaning of “before” vs. sub- (subarctic) – the meaning of
“below”; c) non-equivalent prefixes, cf.: безмежний vs. boundless; поверх vs. floor.
Compounding, or word-composition underlies the formation of new words by
combining two or more existing words.
Compound words in English and Ukrainian may be compared on the basis of their
structure and semantics.
Structurally, compounds are considered within their immediate constituents (ICs).
There are two major types of compound words according to the structure of their
immediate constituents in English and Ukrainian: compounds proper, formed by ICs,
occurring in language as free forms, cf.: ear-pick vs. вухочистка, важкоатлет vs. heavy-
weight, and derivational compounds, formed by a (derivational) suffix added to a phrase,
the second component not occurring as a free form, cf.: honey-mouthed > (noun “honey”
+ noun “mouth”) + ed and медоточивий > (noun “мед” + verb “точити”) + ив(ий).
However, sometimes derivational compounds in Ukrainian may have no derivational
suffix. In this case, the onomasiological base is determined grammatically, i.e. by a
compound belonging to a certain part of speech, cf.: broad-shouldered> (adjective “broad”
+ noun “shoulders”) + ed – the onomasiological base is set by a suffix, and
широкоплечий> (adjective “широкі” + noun “плечі”) + ий – the onomasiological base is
set by the adjectival paradigm.
Both compounds proper and derivational compounds’ structures may be considered
within their ICs links. Compounds in both languages may be linked: a) by juxtaposition,
cf.: dining-car vs. вагон-ресторан; сережка-підвіска vs. ear-drop; major-general vs.
генерал-майор; b) morphologically (with a linking element), cf.: black-a-vised vs.
темношкірий; китайсько-тибетський vs. Sino-Tibetan; c) syntactically (whole phrases
with prepositions or conjunctions), cf.: Frankfurt-on-the-Main vs. Франкфурт-на-Майні;
мати-й-мачуха vs. coltsfoot.
From the viewpoint of semantics compound words in English and Ukrainian are
compared on the basis of correlations of the compounds’ meanings and the meanings of
their ICs. If the meaning of a compound is inferred from the meanings of its ICs, it is a
case of non-idiomatic compounds, cf.: snow-white “white as snow” vs. білосніжний
“білий, як сніг”; блакитноокий “який має блакитні очі” vs. blue-eyed “having blue
eyes”. If the meaning of a compound is not inferred from the meanings of its ICs, then it is
a case of idiomatic compounds, cf.: серцеїд “той, хто легко закохує у себе” vs. lady-
killer “a man who captivates women”.
Conversion, or zero-derivation is a type of word-formation in which the word is
shifted from one part of speech onto another without any morphological additions or
changes. It is the word’s paradigm that changes.
Conversion is a very productive way of word-formation in English. Widely
distributed patterns of conversion in English are: n > v (a text> to text), v > n (to look > a
look), adj. > n (Ukrainian > Ukrainian), n > adj. (virgin>virgin), adv. > v (down > to
down). In Ukrainian very close to conversion is substantivization – the process in which
adjectives (or participles) acquire the paradigm and syntactic functions of nouns, cf.:
поранений (adjective) >поранений (noun) vs. wounded (adjective). Substantivization
from other parts of speech in Ukrainian is often collocationally and grammatically
restricted, cf.: adverbs: одержати «відмінно»; завтра починається сьогодні; по саме
нікуди, functional words and interjections: зажити всі за і проти; все було б добре,
якби не одне але; охи та ахи; голосне але, syntactical constructions: Буде хліб і до
хліба; Вивчити, як «Отче наш»; З вулиці чулося «Розпрягайте, хлопці, коні».
Abbreviation, or initial shortening is a brief way of writing a word or a phrase that
could also be written out in full, using only the letters of the alphabet and possibly full
stops. In English and Ukrainian, this type of word-formation is very productive, cf.: Prof.
for Professor vs. проф. for професор; e.g. for for example vs. напр. for наприклад; VAT
for value-added tax vs. ПДВ for податок на додану вартість. The so-called compound
abbreviations, which are sometimes referred to as contracted compounds, are characteristic
of English, cf.: V-type vs. клиноподібний; L-square vs. косинець; D-day vs. день
початку операції.V-day, T-shirt.
Clipping, or contraction is a type of word-formation in which a short piece is
extracted from a longer word and given the same meaning. A word formed in this way is a
clipped form, cf.: blog, from Web log – a personal Web site-based log of events,
comments, and links. A clipped form is a real word, but not an abbreviation. There are the
following types of clipping:
a) initial clipping – the omission of the fore part of the word, сf.: telephone > phone;
airplane > plane. It is typical of a dialectal speech, cf.: Нема мені одрадоньки ні д’отця,
ні д’неньки.
b) medial clipping – the omission of the middle part of the word, cf.: ра[діостан]ція
> рація; math[ematic]s > maths. The contrastive analysis also reveals some incongruence
in the use of syncope, cf.: літ-ра (clipping) vs. lit. (abbreviation); фізра (clipping) vs.
phys-ed (clipping) vs. PT or PE (abbreviation). In Ukrainian, this type of contraction
frequently occurs in a jargonic talk, cf.: Останнім уроком фізра, на неї і так ніхто не
піде, – тим самим вихолощеним, приятельським тоном умовляв Єгор. c) final
clipping– the omission of the final part of the word, cf.: автомашина > авто vs.
automobile > auto, mummy > mum vs. мама > ма. The contrastive analysis also reveals
some incongruence in the use of apocope, cf.: завідувач > зав (clipping) vs. principal
>princ. (shortening); університет > універ (clipping) vs. university > uni. (shortening).
d) mixed clipping – where the fore and the final parts of the word are clipped (the
conformity is observed only in some proper names), cf.: Elisabeth > Liz vs. Єлизавета >
Ліза, however, flu vs. грип; tec vs. детектив.
Blending is a kind of word-formation in which a word is constructed by combining
arbitrary parts of two or more existing words. A word constructed in such a way is a blend,
cf.: Ukr. аскофен – аспірин + кофеїн; Eng. paramedic – parachute + medic; chunnel (for
the underwater link between Britain and the continent) – channel + tunnel. Being very
productive in English, blending has become “popular” in Ukrainian only in the last
decade, cf.: франглійська (французька мова, яка містить велику кількість англійських
слів і виразів); Оксбридж from Oxbridge (Oxford + Cambridge). It should be pointed
out that blending in English might have another type of word-formation equivalent in
Ukrainian, cf.: brunch (breakfast + lunch) vs. сніданок-обід (compounding).
Back-formation, or reversion is the derivation of new words by means of removing a
suffix or other element resembling it. In backformation we take an existing word and
remove from it a piece that “looks” like an affix, but really is not, in order to obtain a new
word. For example, the English words like editor (“one who prepares the literary work of
another person, or number of persons for publication, by selecting, revising, and arranging
the material; also, one who prepares an edition of any literary work”), sculptor,
burglarborrowed from Old French or Latin, “sound” as though they contained the familiar
agent suffix -er(-or), as in writer, singer or actor, and so this apparent suffix has been
removed to obtain the previously non-existent verbs burgle “to steal (goods) or rob (a
place) as a burglar; to commit a burglary”; sculpt “to practise the art of sculpture” and edit
“to prepare an edition of (a literary work or works by an earlier author)”. In Ukrainian
back-formation is a non-productive type of word-formation and is reduced to the cases of
gender differentiations, occurring within the same part of speech, cf.: доярка vs. дояр, and
is usually traced back to word-forming phenomena at the diachronic approach:
historically, cf.: зонтик > зонт; дрейфувати > дрейф, etc.
Sound interchange is the way of word-building when some sounds are changed to
form a new word. It is non-productive in Modern English, it was productive in Old
English and can be met in other Indo-European languages.
The causes of sound interchange can be different. It can be the result of Ancient
Ablaut which cannot be explained by the phonetic laws during the period of the language
development known to scientists., e.g. to strike – stroke, to sing – song etc. It can be also
the result of Ancient Umlaut or vowel mutation which is the result of palatalizing the root
vowel because of the front vowel in the syllable coming after the root (regressive
assimilation), e.g. hot – to heat (hotian), blood – to bleed (blodian) etc.
Дзвін – дзвоник, річ – речі; пекла – пік, говорити – говірка.
In many cases we have vowel and consonant interchange. In nouns we have voiceless
consonants and in verbs we have corresponding voiced consonants because in Old English
these consonants in nouns were at the end of the word and in verbs in the intervocal
position, e.g. bath – to bathe, life – to live, breath – to breathe etc.
Stress interchange can be mostly met in verbs and nouns of Romanic origin : nouns
have the stress on the first syllable and verbs on the last syllable, e.g. `accent – to ac`cent.
This phenomenon is explained in the following way: French verbs and nouns had different
structure when they were borrowed into English, verbs had one syllable more than the
corresponding nouns. When these borrowings were assimilated in English the stress in
them was shifted to the previous syllable (the second from the end) . Later on the last
unstressed syllable in verbs borrowed from French was dropped (the same as in native
verbs) and after that the stress in verbs was on the last syllable while in nouns it was on the
first syllable. As a result of it we have such pairs in English as : to af`fix –`affix, to
con`flict– `conflict, to ex`port –`export, to ex`tract – `extract etc. As a result of stress
interchange we have also vowel interchange in such words because vowels are pronounced
differently in stressed and unstressed positions.
Ка`зати – `казка, ве`ликий – `велич, ро`си – `роси.
Зміна словоформи: стіл – стола, кінь – коня, сестра – сестри.
Омоніми: `замок – за`мок, `стріла – стрі`ла, `насип – на`сип, `мала – ма`ла, `обід
– о`бід.
 Sound imitation. It is the way of word-building when a word is formed by imitating
different sounds. There are some semantic groups of words formed by means of sound
imitation:
a) sounds produced by human beings, such as: to whisper, to giggle, to mumble, to
sneeze, to whistle etc. Гигикати, шушукатись, хлипати, тюпати.
b) sounds produced by animals, birds, insects, such as: to hiss, to buzz, to bark, to
moo, to twitter etc. Шипіти, гавкати, нявкати, хрюкати, квікати, крякати.
c) sounds produced by nature and objects, such as: to splash, to rustle, to clatter, to
bubble, to ding-dong, to tinkle etc. Дзенькати, бренькати, грюкати, бамкати.
The corresponding nouns are formed by means of conversion, e.g. clang (of a bell),
chatter (of children) etc.

Lecture 3
Semasiology
Generally speaking, meaning can be more or less described as a component of the
word through which a concept is communicated. Thus a word is able to denote real
objects, qualities, actions and abstract notions. Lexical meaning reflects the concept
expressed by the given word.
The branch of linguistics which specializes in the study of meaning is called
semasiology (semantics). The modern approach to semantics is based on the assumption
that the inner form of a word (i.e. the meaning) presents a structure which is called the
semantic structure of the word.
The semantic structure of a word does not present an indissoluble unity, nor does it
necessarily stand for one concept. It is generally known that most words convey several
concepts and thus possess a corresponding number of meanings.
The main semantic structures of a word are monosemy and polysemy.
Monosemy is the existence within one word of only one meaning. Monosemantic
words are comparatively few in number. They are mainly scientific terms (biochemistry,
cybernetics, bronchitis, molecule), some pronouns (this, my, both), numerals.
Polysemy is the existence within one word of several connected meanings. One of
them is the main (central) meaning, whereas the rest are associated (marginal) meanings.
Polysemantic words constitute the bulk of the English vocabulary. E.g.: face (n.) 1) the
front of the head (the main meaning); 2) the expression of the countenance; 3) the main or
front surface; 4) the surface that is marked, as of a clock; 5) appearance; outward aspect;
6) dignity, self-respect (associated meanings).
The word “polysemy” means “plurality of meanings”, it exists only in the language,
not in speech. A word having several meanings is called polysemantic. Most English
words are polysemantic. The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops
gradually, mostly over the centuries, as more and more new meanings are either added to
old ones, or oust some of them. So the complicated processes of polysemy development
involve both the appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones.
 The leading semantic component in the semantic structure of a word is usually
termed denotative (= referential) component. It expresses the conceptual content of a
word. Additional semantic components are termed connotations or connotative
components. E.g.:
Denotative components Connotative components
Lonely, adj. Alone, without Melancholy, sad (emotive connotation)
company
To glance, v. To look To look briefly, passingly (connotation of
duration)
To glare, v. To look To look steadily, lastingly (connotation of
duration;
To look in anger, rage (emotive connotation)
=Самотній – одинокий

Metaphor in English and Ukrainian

The usual pattern of a word’s semantic development is from monosemy to polysemy,
with two and more meanings developing into a complex semantic structure.
The process of development of a new meaning (or a change of meaning) is
traditionally termed transference. (The word may transfer from one referent onto another
thus acquiring a new meaning).
The type of transference based on resemblance (similarity) is called
linguisticmetaphor. A new meaning appears as a result of associating 2 objects
(phenomena, qualities, shape, function, position, colour, temperature, etc.) due to their
outward similarity. E.g. box (a small separate enclosure forming a part of a theatre)
developed on the basis of its former meaning (a rectangular container used for packing or
storing things). Other examples of linguistic metaphor are: the teeth of a saw, the neck of a
bottle, the eye of a needle, the foot of the mountain, to catch an idea, to grasp a chance
(opportunity).
Metaphor (similarity of meanings) may be described as a semantic process of
associating two denotata, one of which in some way (in shape, colour, appearance, etc.)
resembles the other, cf.: neck “1. the part of a person or animal that connects the head the
head with the body; 2. a relatively narrow part shaped like a neck” vs. шия “1. частина
тіла людини та більшості тварин, що з’єднує голову з тулубом; 2. розм. вузька
частина якогось предмета, споруди і т. ін.”; лис “1. хижий ссавець родини собачих з
цінним рудим або сріблястим хутром і з довгим пухнастим хвостом; 2. перен. про
хитру, лукаву людину; хитрун, лукавець” vs. fox “1. a flesh-eating mammal of the dog
family with a pointed muzzle, large erect ears, and a long bushy tail; 2. a clever crafty
person; 3. Am. informal a physically attractive woman”;

Homonymy in English and Ukrainian

One should distinguish polysemous words from homonyms – words identical in
form, but different in meaning.
Being identical both in sound and form, such homonyms are called absolute
homonyms. Another group of homonyms are partial homonyms which are divided into:
homographs and homophones. We can hardly find any congruence between these kinds
of homonyms in English and Ukrainian,as their contrasting involves non-identity in sound
and form, which are very often of a different origin. Homographs are words with different
meanings and origins which have the same spelling, cf.: bow /bou/ :: bow /bau/; close
/klous/ :: close /klouz/. The pronunciation is usually the same: We saw a polar bear at the
zoo vs. I just can’t bear the excitement.
In Ukrainian, homographs are words that differ only in an accent. Here we
differentiate between the phonetical homographs, cf.: кóлос :: колóс, and the grammatical
ones, cf.: рýки (Nom. case, pl.) :: рукú (Gen. case, sg.).
Homophones are words with the same pronunciation as another word, but with a
different spelling and meaning, cf.: hair “one of the numerous fine and generally
cylindrical filaments that grow from the skin or integument of animals” vs. hare “a rodent
quadruped of the genus Lepus, having long ears and hind legs, a short tail, and a divided
upper lip”. In Ukrainian homophonesare not numerous, it being determined by specific
features of the phonetical system: distinct articulation of the vowels [i], [e] both in an
unstressed position, cf.: гриби :: греби, etc.
Synonymy in English and Ukrainian
One of the fundamental paradigmatic relations in vocabulary is synonymy.
Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence, cf.: метелиця :: заметіль ::
сніговійниця :: сніговиця :: завірюха :: хуртовина :: хурделиця vs. snowstorm ::
blizzard; look :: glance :: stare :: gaze :: glimpse :: peep :: sight :: view vs. дивитися ::
глядіти :: зирити :: глипати :: наставлятися :: зріти :: спозирати :: назирати :: блимати
:: поглипувати, etc. Words are said to be synonymous if they mean the same thing. The
terms movie, film, flick, and motion picture all have the same set of referents in the real
world and are usually taken to be synonymous terms. To address the notion of synonymy
more formally, we can say that term A is synonymous with term B if every referent of A is
a referent of B and vice versa. For example, if every movie is a film and every film is a
movie, the terms movie and film are synonymous. The “vice versa” is important: without it,
we would be defining hyponymy.
Even if we restrict meaning to linguistic meaning, words that appear synonymous at
first glance often refer to slightly different sets of concepts or are used in different
situations. The adjectives fast, quick, and rapid may be used interchangeably in reference
to someone’s running speed, but a fast talker (a ‘slippery ordeceptive person’) is different
from a “quick talker”. In Ukrainian, the corresponding synonymous group also reveals
restrictions, determined by lexical collocations, cf.: швидка (хода), швидкісний (поїзд);
пливка (течія), кваплива (мова), прудкокрилий (птах), прудконога (дівчина), негайна
(поміч), шпарка (робота), etc.
There are three main types of synonyms: 1. ideographic (semantic) synonyms –
words that designate the same concept, but differ in additional shades of meaning, cf.:
шлях :: дорога (шлях “смуга землі, призначена для їзди та ходіння; дорога”; дорога
“будь-яке місце для проїзду й місце для проходу, навіть дуже вузьке”) vs. way :: road
(way “a route, direction or path”; road “an open way, usually a paved one, for the passage
of vehicles, people, and animals”). Some other examples: страх vs. жах; голубий vs.
блакитний; say vs. tell; town vs. city;
2. stylistic synonyms – words that are characterized by emotive and / or expressive
charge, and hence, differ in their stylistic idiosyncrasy (a mode of expression peculiar to
an author), cf.: обличчя (neutral) :: лик (literary) :: лице :: вид :: образ :: фізіономія ::
фізія (colloquial) :: будка :: морда :: пика :: писок :: рило :: мармиза (vulgar) :: vs. face
(neutral) :: visage (literary) :: countenance (formal) :: physiognomy (formal) :: features ::
mug :: phiz (informal).
Within a certain group of synonyms there may be singled out a synonymic dominant
– a lexical item that is characterized by the most general meaning of the kind, cf.:
перемога :: звитяга :: вікторія :: тріумф :: торжество vs. victory :: win ::
conquest :: triumph :: success :: superiority :: mastery. A synonymic dominant is a key
word of a synonymic group, the latter being defined as a set of words that determine a
certain domain, e.g. the domain of MISFORTUNE “НЕЩАСТЯ”, cf.: misfortune ::
mischance :: bad luck :: ill luck :: mishap :: misadventure :: accident :: tragedy ::
calamity :: disaster :: adversity :: affliction :: hardship :: trouble :: trial :: tribulation ::
blow :: reverse :: setback vs. нещастя :: біда :: горе :: лихо :: безголів’я :: зло :: драма
:: трагедія :: напасть :: нахаба :: пеня.
Antonymy in English and Ukrainian
The word antonymy derives from the Greek root anti- (‘opposite’) and denotes
opposition in meaning. In contrast to synonymy and hyponymy, antonymy is a binary
relationship that can characterize a relationship between only two words at a time.
Antonyms in English and Ukrainian may be compared on the basis of their semantics
or structure. The semantic criterion for comparison manifests itself in polysemy. The
matter is that a word in one language may stand in the antonymic relations to one of the
meanings (lexico-semantic variants) of a polysemous word in the other language.
According to their structure antonyms are divided into non-cognate (semantic) and
cognate (derivational). Non-cognate antonyms are words that are opposed by their
meanings. They constitute the majority of antonyms both in English and in Ukrainian, cf.:
warm :: cold vs. теплий :: холодний; early :: late vs. рано :: пізно; швидкий ::
повільний vs. quick :: slow; будувати :: руйнувати vs. build :: destroy.
Cognate antonyms are words that are formed by adding an affix (in particular,
prefix) to the opposing word, cf.: armed :: unarmed vs. озброєний :: беззбройний;
симетричний :: асиметричний vs. symmetric :: asymmetric. The most productive
opposite-forming affixes in Ukrainian are без-, а-, анти-, де-, ви-, за-, від- :: під-, від- ::
при-, роз- :: з-(с-), роз- :: на-, у(в-), cf.: демократичний :: антидемократичний;
орієнтація :: дезорієнтація; виводити :: заводити; відбігати :: підбігати;
відчалювати :: причалювати; розформувати :: сформувати; розвантажувати ::
навантажувати; вдихати :: видихати. In English these affixes are: anti-, dis-, in-, un-,
counter-, -less :: -ful, cf.: organization :: disorganization; complete :: incomplete;
settled :: unsettled; fascist :: antifascist; revolutionary :: counter-revolutionary;
hopeless :: hopeful.
The analysis of the English and Ukrainian counterparts reveals four types of
antonymic correspondences. Antonyms may be:
a) non-cognate in Ukrainian, but cognate in English, cf.: з’являтися :: зникати vs.
appear :: disappear;
b) non-cognate in English, but cognate in Ukrainian, cf.: mask :: expose vs.
маскувати :: демаскувати;
c) non-cognate both in Ukrainian and in English, cf.: ніжний :: грубий vs. tender ::
rude.
d) cognate both in Ukrainian and in English, cf.: розбірливий :: нерозбірливий vs.
legible :: illegible.
 Lecture 4
Phraseology
In lexicology, the scope of collocability is also expanded upon phraseological units
– stable word-groups characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning.
Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be
freely made up in speech, but are reproduced as ready-made units. The main characteristic
features of phraseological units are: idiomaticity, stability and equivalence to a word.
Idiomaticity is a semantic characteristic of phraseological units which consists in
non-inference of the meaning of the whole from the meaning of the individual parts
(components), cf.: build castles in the air “make plans based on hopes and wishes which
will probably never come true” vs. будувати повітряні замки “придумувати
нездійсненні, відірвані від життя плани, мріяти про щось недосяжне”.
Stability of phraseological units provides for stability of their use, i.e. usage by all
people, speaking the language. A phraseological unit is also stable in its structure. From
the viewpoint of its structure, the stability of phraseological units is observed in:
a) components’ morphological forms, cf.: a hair’s breadth, but not *a hair breadth
vs. висіти на волосинці, but not *висіти на волосинках.
b) components order, cf.: live and learn, but not *learn and live vs. вік живи – вік
учись, but not *вік учись – вік живи.
Classification of Phraseological Units
The most famous classification of phraseological units based on the semantic
principle is the classification worked out by Ch. Balley and completed by
V.V. Vinogradov. According to this classification phraseological units may fall into the
following classes:
a) phraseological fusions (idioms) – semantically indivisible phraseological units
whose integral meaning is non-motivated, i.e. is not reduced to the meanings of their
components, cf.: on cloud nine “to be extremely happy” vs. на сьомому небі “дуже
задоволений, радісний, безмежно щасливий”, до зеленого (блакитного) змія
“надмірно, до нестями” vs. see pink elephants “to imagine seeing something because
someone is drunk”.
b) phraseological unities – semantically indivisible phraseological units whose
integral meaning is motivated, i.e. is reduced to the meanings of their components, cf.:
зробити з мухи слона “надто перебільшувати щось, надавати великого значення
чому-небудь незначному” vs. make a mountain out of a molehill “make something
unimportant seem important”, break one’s back “to work hard” vs. гнути спину “важко
працювати”.
c) phraseological collocations – phraseological units whose components are
characterized by a specific lexical valence, one of the components having a bound
meaning, cf.: брати участь vs. take part, drop one’s eyes vs. потупити очі в землю.
Phraseological units may be classified in accordance with their structure and their
ability to perform the same syntactical functions as parts of speech. The classification
based on the structural principles distinguishes phraseological units into the following
classes:
1. Verbal, e.g. to play the first fiddle, to wash one’s hands, to see which way the wind
blows, to hit below the belt / грати першу скрипку, вмивати руки, бити нижче
пояса, накивати п’ятами
2. Substantive, e.g. common sense; first night; strong language; wolf in sheep’s
clothing; Indian summer; a stony heart / здоровий глузд, вовк в овечій шкурі,
бабине літо
3. Adjectival, e.g. as pretty as a picture; as old as the hills; hungry as a wolf; safe and
sound; sharp as a needle; as slow as a snail / гарний, як намальований; старий, як
світ; голодний, як вовк; гострий, як бритва; живий-здоровий
4. Adverbial, e.g. once upon a time; under one’s nose; from head to foot, in cold blood,
in the twinkling of an eye, within one’s reach, out of a clear sky / під носом у
когось, з голови до ніг, рукою подати, як грім з ясного неба, тишком-нишком
5. Interjectional, e.g. good Heavens!, by George!, great guns!, a pretty kettle of fish!,
Bless your heart!, my aunt!, Tell me another! Ask me another! Well, I never!Трясця!
Матінко Божа! Ой лишенько!

Taking into account the three levels (semantic, structural-and-grammatical,

componential), one may single out the following types of cross-linguistic relationships:
1. Phraseological equivalents (total and partial).
2. Phraseological analogues (total and partial).
3. Non-equivalent phraseological units.
The phraseological equivalents are cross-linguistic phraseological units with identical
semantics, grammar, structure and a set of components.
Phraseological equivalents are phraseological units of the English and Ukrainian
languages that have the same cognitive meaning, pragmatic connotations, grammatical and
componential structures, cf.: show one’s teeth “to make threats or express hostility” vs.
показувати свої зуби “виявити свою злостиву вдачу, злі наміри”. They both involve
the same image and both are neutral; from the viewpoint of their lexico-grammatical
characteristics both belong to verbal phraseological units, structured by the same pattern
(verb + pronoun + noun).
The phraseological analogues are phraseological units that have the same or close
meaning, but totally or partially differ in their inner form.
They reveal approximate similarities at the structural and grammatical levels, and
have one common lexeme in their componential structures or have different componential
structures. cf.: put (have) one’s tail between one’s legs “to feel or look ashamed and
embarrassed” vs. підібгати хвіст “втрачати упевненість, пиху, злякавшись чи
засоромившись наслідків своїх дій, вчинків або відчуваючи свою провину”. The
functional and stylistic connotations of the phraseological analogues are different – the
English phraseological unit is neutral, whilst the Ukrainian one is low colloquial. The
components tail vs. хвіст coincide. Both analogues are related to the class of the verbal
phraseological units with different structures: English (verb + noun + preposition + noun)
and Ukrainian (verb + noun).
Non-equivalent phraseological units are considered to reveal no equivalence in the
phraseological system of the other language. cf.: to have the blues “to feel sad” vs.
хандрити, сумувати, бути у пригніченому стані; дивитися вовком “виявляти
неприязне, вороже ставлення до кого-небудь” vs. to scowl, to lower, to look surly
(morose, crusty), etc.

Lecture 5
Stylistic Differentiation of the Vocabulary
 The social context in which the communication is taking place determines both the mode
of dress and the modes of speech. When placed in different situations, people instinctively
choose different kinds of words and structures to express their thought. 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 speaker resorts to a certain functional style due to such extralingual factors: the
character of the situation in which communication takes place (official, ceremonial,
informal, private or other); the relations between the communicants (formal, official,
friendly, hostile, spontaneous); the aim of communication (transference of specific
information, emotional attitudes, establishment of business contacts, etc); oral or written
communication.
The term functional style is generally accepted in modern linguistics. I.R.Galperin
formulated the understanding of a functional style as “a system of coordinated, interrelated
and interconditioned language means intended to fulfil a specific function of
communication and aiming at a definite effect.”
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 can be roughly
classified into 3 types: stylistically neutral (basic vocabulary); formal (a lecture, a speech in
court, professional communication) and informal (an informal talk, an intimate letter).
From the viewpoint of their stylistic differentiation, all English and Ukrainian words are
divided into two major groups: A. Stylistically neutral, i.e. words that are characteristic of
all language styles (either official, scientific, publicist, colloquial or belleslettres). They are
words that designate general notions: objects, natural phenomena, as well as numbers
(numerals), deixis (pronouns), etc. cf.: батько vs. father; sun vs. сонце; five vs. п’ять; вони
vs. they; B. Stylistically charged, i.e. words that are characteristic of some definite, selective
styles of language, cf.: угода vs. covenant – official style; synthesis vs. синтез – scientific
style; суверенітет vs. sovereignty – publicist style; балакуха vs. chatterbox – colloquial
style.
The use of language (lexicon) in various social spheres is predetermined by its stylistic
and functional differentiation. The stylistic classification is based on the word’s reference
(e.g. place, time, etc.). It is the reference that determines a stylistic value of a word.
Formal words are called literary-bookish words, or learned words. Learned words are
used in descriptive passages of fiction, scientific texts, radio and TV announcements, official
talks and documents, business correspondence, etc. As a rule, these words are mostly of
foreign origin (borrowings) and have poly-morphemic structure, e.g. infant,solitude,
fascination, cordial, paternal, maternal, commence, assist, comprise, endeavour, exclude,
heterogeneous, hereby, thereby, etc.
Archaisms – words that are out of use in present day language and are considered to be
obsolete, recalling bygone eras, cf.: eke (obsolete) vs. також (modern); mere (obsolete) vs.
ставок/озеро (modern); глас (obsolete) vs. voice (modern); спудей (obsolete) vs. student
(modern);
b) historical words – words that denote no-longer existing objects, cf.: musket “a gun
with a long barrel, used in the past” vs. мушкет “старовинна гнотова рушниця великого
калібру”; алебарда “старовинна зброя – сокирка у вигляді півмісяця, насаджена на
довгий держак зі списом на кінці” vs. halberd “a long-handled weapon combining a spear
and battle axe, used esp. in the 15th and 16th centuries”. Sometimes, historical words reveal
incoincidence in temporal reference, cf.: забрало (historical word) vs. visor (both historical
and contemporary word. Historisms (historical words) are words which denote objects or
phenomena which no longer exist. Historical words have no neutral synonyms in Modern
English. E.g. yeoman, arbalest, archer, shire, knight, longbow, villain, burg, burgess.
c) neologisms – words and word groups that designate new concepts, cf.: wellness (new)
vs. здоров’я (old); дилер (new) vs. dealer (old). Sometimes we may observe some
inconsistency in the contrasted languages between lexical neologisms (new words in
meaning and form) and semantic ones (new meanings in available words), cf.:
інтернетівський “той, що здійснюється через комп’ютерну мережу Інтернет” (lexical
neologism) vs. electronic “involving computers or other electronic systems” (semantic
neologism);
dialectal words, or dialecticisms (words spoken in a particular part of the country). It is
hardly worth looking for any similarities between dialectal words in English and Ukrainian,
considering their numerous varieties in both languages and besides, their designating local
customs, characteristics of social life and of natural phenomena. Nevertheless, for the
purpose of an adequate translation (to render a stylistic equivalence) one may find dialectal
equivalents, or rather nearequivalents. For example, for designating “squirrel” in the English
dialects the word squirren may be used, whereas in Ukrainian we find the words вивірка or
білиця; the meaning of “beautiful” may be rendered with the Scottish bonny or braw vs.
South-Western Ukrainian файний; within the same dialects the meaning “crazy, silly” may
be rendered with the words daffy vs. варіят.
Poetic words with elevated, “lofty” colouring are traditionally used only in poetry or
were used in poetry in the XVII-XIX centuries. Most of them are archaic and have
stylistically neutral synonyms, e.g. lone (lonely), steed (horse), quoth (said), brow
(forehead), woe (sorrow), behold (see), oft (often), array (clothes). Their function is to create
poetic images and make speech elevated. Poetic words are found in poetry, cf.: небозвід vs.
concave; чоло vs. brow; ложе vs. couch; воїн vs. warrior.
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.
A classical term is monosemantic and has no synonyms. Terms of general nature are
interdisciplinary (approbation, definition, anomaly, monograph, etc.). semantically narrow
terms belong to a definite branch of science:
Medicine: antiseptics, anaesthesia, analgesic, anaemia, sterile, stethoscope.
Computing: cyberbooster, browser, spam, motherboard, hardware, software.
Business: accounting, liability, expenses, brand, balance, broker, co-branding,
shareholder.

Informal words and word-groups are traditionally divided into 3 types: colloquial, slang
and dialect words and word-groups.
Informal language is more casual and spontaneous. It is used when communicating
with friends or family either in writing or in conversation. It is used when writing personal
emails, text messages and in some business correspondence. The tone of informal language
is more personal than formal language.
Colloquial words are characteristic of the informal style of spoken English.
Is a word or expression that makes up the informal style of language
 One should distinguish between literary (standard) colloquial words as units of Standard
English and non-literary colloquialisms that belong to sub-standard English vocabulary.
Literary colloquial words are used in everyday conversations both by cultivated and
uneducated people and are also met in written literary texts. They are closer to neutral words
than to literary-bookish units, but, as a rule, have stronger emotional colouring. They are
formed on standard word-formative patterns (contraction, conversion), e.g.: granny, birdie,
baby-sit, daily (n.), pal, chum (friend), folks (people), girl (a woman of any age), disco, do
away, pram, flu, movie.
Велик (велосипед), бабця, щоденка (газета), втюхати, впарити, спамити.
Literarycolloquialwords (everydayspeechlexicon), cf.: rubbishvs. дурниця;
бабахнутиvs. bang; замазураvs. piggy-wiggy; beetle-headvs. бовдур.
Non-literary (sub-standard) colloquial words include slang, jargonisms, professionalisms
and vulgarisms, dialect words and word-groups.
The term “slang” originated in the USA at the beginning of the 20 th century and then
penetrated to the other countries. Slang comprises highly informal words not accepted for
dignified use. a type of language consisting of words and phrases that are regarded as very
informal, are more common in speech than writing. It seems to mean everything that is
below the standard of usage of present-day English. The “New Oxford English Dictionary”
defines slang as follows:
a) the special vocabulary used by any set of persons of a low or disreputable character;
language of a low and vulgar type;
b) the cant or jargon of a certain class or period;
a) language of a highly colloquial type considered as below the level of standard
educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some
special sense.
As is seen from these definitions slang is represented both as special vocabulary and as a
special language. Slang is much rather a spoken than a literary language. It originates, nearly
always, in speech.
Slang words, used by most speakers in very informal communication, are highly emotive
and expressive. Such words are expressive sub-standard substitutes for current words of
standard vocabulary. As a rule, their meanings are based on metaphor and have a jocular or
ironic colouring. But yet all their meanings are based on metaphor, they strike us as
singularly unpoetical. E.g.: attic (head), means (money), saucers, blinkers (eyes), soaked
(drunk), rot (nonsense), to leg (to walk). The idea of a “pretty girl” is worded by more than
one hundred ways in slang: cookie, tomato, sugar, bird, cutie, etc. Slang words tend to lose
their originality rather fast and are replaced by newer formations.
Очі – шари, моргала, баньки; мільйон (гроші) – лимон, лям; мільярд (гроші) – ярд.
Хайпувати, на хайпі, хаб, стартап.
Slang words sometimes express humorous attitude towards a denoted object, cf.: предок
(father) vs. governor; skirt (girl) vs. спідниця (cf.: ‘бігати за кожною спідницею’);
upperstory (head) vs. дах (cf.: ‘дах їде’); fins (hands) vs. ласти (cf.: ‘забери свої ласти’).
Vulgarisms are coarse words with a strong emotive meaning; words denoting the notions
which are taboo in a given speech community, normally avoided in polite conversation.
Vulgarisms include: a) expletives and swear words of abusive character (e.g. damn,
goddamn, bloody, son of a bitch, bastard, to hell); b) obscene (or taboo, four-letter) words
which are highly indecent. The latter are not even fixed in common dictionaries. They are
euphemistically called “four-letter” words. We should differentiate between 1) those which
have lost their shocking power and are not meant to abuse anybody; they serve as mere
signals of strong emotions (e.g. I know damn well; It was a crazy dream; It’s a devilish job)
and 2) those which are meant to offend, insult or abuse (e.g. the son of a bitch; shut your
bloody mouth!).

Informal words peculiar for a certain social or professional group should be considered as
jargonisms. Jargonisms stand close to slang, also being sub-standard, expressive and
emotive, but unlike slang they are used by limited groups of people, united either
professionally or socially. The aim of jargon is to preserve secrecy within one or another
social or professional group. Jargonisms are generally neutral words with entirely new
meanings imposed on them. Most of them are absolutely incomprehensible to those outside
the social group which has invented them. E.g.:
Bird (rocket, spacecraft), garment (pressure space suit) – astronauts’ jargon;
Grass, tea, weed (narcotic), candy (cocaine), candy man (drug seller) – drug addicts’
jargon.
Such words are usually motivated and, like slang words, have metaphoric character.
Військовий жаргон: калаш, летяга, старлей, прапор.
Газетний жаргон: джинса, піар, чорний піар, хедлайн, хедлайнери, віп(и).
Jargon words (unofficial substitutes for professional terms): maths vs. матма stand for
‘mathematics’ – students’ jargon; ringer – military jargon vs. офіцер ВПС – stylistically
neutral; cf.: mug vs. рило/морда; вилупок vs. bastard.
Professionalisms are term-like words. They are used and understood by members of a
certain trade and profession. Their function is to rationalize professional communication and
make it economical. Professionalisms are sub-standard colloquial words used by people of
a definite trade or profession, usually connected by common interest at work or even at
home. They fulfill a socially useful function in communication, facilitating a quick and
adequate grasp of the message. Such words are informal, economical substitutes for
corresponding terms. E.g.: nuke (nuclear), Hi-Fi (high fidelity), anchors (brakes), smash-up
(accident) and the like.
Medical professionalisms: script (prescription), negative (normal), frequent flyer (a
regular patient in the hospital), BP (blood pressure), appy– a person's appendix or a patient
with appendicitis.
Professionalisms should not be mixed up with jargonisms. Like slang words, they do not
aim at secrecy. Here are some professionalisms used in different trades:
Tin-fish (submarine), piper (a specialist who decorates pastry with the use of a cream –
pipe).
Vulgarisms are coarse words with a strong emotive meaning; words denoting the notions
which are taboo in a given speech community, normally avoided in polite conversation.
Vulgarisms include: a) expletives and swear words of abusive character (e.g. damn,
goddamn, bloody, son of a bitch, bastard, to hell); b) obscene (or taboo, four-letter) words
which are highly indecent. The latter are not even fixed in common dictionaries. They are
euphemistically called “four-letter” words. We should differentiate between 1) those which
have lost their shocking power and are not meant to abuse anybody; they serve as mere
signals of strong emotions (e.g. I know damn well; It was a crazy dream; It’s a devilish job)
and 2) those which are meant to offend, insult or abuse (e.g. the son of a bitch; shut your
bloody mouth!).
 Semantic Equivalence
Equivalence [from Latin aeguus “equal” + valentis “having meaning, value”] is viewed
as equality of value, force, importance, significance, etc. The units A and B are supposed to
be semantically equivalent, under the condition that they completely coincide by all marks of
their semantic structure, and between them the identity relations are established: А = В.
The semantic equivalence of the contrasted words in English and Ukrainian is determined
by three types of equivalence: (total) coincidence, partial coincidence (inclusion and
overlap), incoincidence
Coincidence, or identity (А = В – class A and class B reveal the same membership)
provides for complete, or total coincidence of lexical meanings of the contrasted words.
This type of relations is very often observed: in terms, cf.: atom “the smallest unit of any
chemical element, consisting of a positive nucleus surrounded by negative electrons” vs.
атом “найдрібніша частинка хімічного елемента, що складається з ядра й електронів”,
and borrowings, cf.: import “something imported, esp. merchandise from abroad” vs.
імпорт “ввезення в країну товарів із-за кордону”; ded of roses – ; as busy as a bee –
Partial coincidence is characterized by incomplete coincidence of lexical meanings. The
incompletion may be represented by means of inclusion, or of intersection.
It reveals differences in the semiotic structure of the individual source language and
target language units and the scope of meanings. E.g., delinquency prevention – запобігання
злочинності громадськими засобами; crime scene – місцезлочину; closing speech –
заключне слово.
No correspondence of a lexical unit in one language to a lexical unit in another
languageresults in the so-called non-equivalent units (equivalent-lacking). Non-equivalent
units are words of the Source Language which have no corresponding lexical units in the
vocabulary of the Target Language. They are usually proper names which are not used or
even known in other countries (personal names such as Aubrey, Hope, Ігор, Галина, etc.;
place-names such as Hindley, Catmose, Сатанів, Довжок, etc., and names of specifically
national notions and phenomena such as lobby, muffin, drugstore, haggis, toffee,
butterscotch, grill-room, drive-in, самовар, свитка, вишиванка etc.).

Literature:
1. Andreichuk N.I., Babeliuk O.A. Contrastive lexicology of English and Ukrainian languages: theory
and practice. Kherson: Helvetica, 2019. 236 p.
2. DemenchukOleh. Conatrstive lexicology of the English and Ukrainian Languages. Rivne: RSUH,
2018. 146 p.
3. Верба Л.Г. Порівняльна лексикологія англійської та української мов. Посібник для
перекладацьких відділень вузів. Вінниця, 2003. 160 с.
4. Антрушина Г.Б., Афанасьева О.В., Морозова Н.Н. Лексикология английского языка: Учеб.
пособие для студентов. – 3-е изд., стереотип. М.: Дрофа, 2001.
5. Марчишина А.А., Петрова Т.М. Лексикологія англійської мови: теорія і практика / навчально-
методичний посібник з лексикології англійської мови. Кам’янець-Подільський: Кам’янець-
Подільський національний університет імені Івана Огієнка, 2020. 79 c.
6. Ніколенко А.Г. Лексикологія англійської мови – теорія і практика. Вінниця: Нова Книга,
2007. 528 с.