Что такое word combination
Word combination "Stop Words" may be changed for some other definition (for example, when translating to the foreign language) by changing parameter StopWords in the configuration file of the search module (see cnsearch.conf).
Словосочетание "Stop Words" можно заменить другим эквивалентом (например, при переводе на другой язык) путем изменения параметра StopWords в конфигурационном файле клиентской части (см. cnsearch.conf).
This word combination has been first used in a speech at the Diplomatic Academy in Moscow in 2003 by the then President Robert Kocharian of Armenia.
Это словосочетание было впервые использовано в речи тогдашнего президента Армении Роберта Кочаряна в Дипломатической академии в Москве в 2003 году.
Semantic literalism - a mistake of a translator that is the result of rendering of word or word combination semantic components not including other factors.
Теория соответствий - теория, которая основывается на утверждении, что переводный текст всегда содержит определенное количество информации, которая отсутствует в начальном тексте.
The name comes from the word combination "red gold" (also known as rose gold) - the old name of a high-grade gold type.
Название происходит от словосочетания «червонное золото» - старинного названия высокопробного вида золота.
Derzhavin (followed by Rybakov) tried to relate a perfectly clear word combination "the path of Troyan" to the "Tropaeum Traiani" column erected by the emperor at the top of the mountain in commemoration of his victories.
Совершенно понятное по-русски выражение «тропа Трояна» Державин (а за ним и Рыбаков) почему-то связал с колонной "Tropaeum Traiani", поставленной императором на вершине горы в ознаменование своих побед.
Словосочетание, выделенное жирным шрифтом, может показаться вполне сносным, но это всего-навсего обман зрения.
The word combination "project leader" includes a lot of of traits of character - a very high sense of responsibility, high self-discipline and perfectionism, the ability to act quickly, take decisions independently and undertake the responsibility for them.
Руководитель проектов должен обладать такими качествами, как логическое мышление и точность, а также способность понимать клиентов и коллег, ведь в повседневности очень много работы связано с планированием времени и финансовыми вопросами.
Person with equal opportunities of movement, who uses a wheelchair (instead of using the following word combination: chained to a wheelchair);
человек с неравной возможностью перемещения, который использует коляску (вместо высказываний типа - человек, прикованный к инвалидной каляске);
Другие результаты
The initial abbreviations are the words formed by shortenings of several words and word-combinations.
Lingvo dictionary provides different variants of translations and possible forms of use of words and word-combinations.
Parenthetical structures are the word combinations or sentences which help to express our attitude towards the words we have said.
Вводные конструкции - это такие словосочетания или предложения, с помощью которых можно выразить своё отношение к тому, что мы говорим.
The theory of word combination in Russian linguistics has a long tradition, going back to the 18 century. No corresponding theory is distinguished in Western European or American linguistics. True, the term 'phrase' goes as far back as the 18* century when it was used by R. Lowth. However, the attention of early English grammarians was chiefly focused upon the description of the grammatical devices of joining words.
At the beginning of the 20 th century, the tone of grammatical discussion became more scholarly. O. Jespersen introduced the theory of three ranks that concerns the mutual relations of words in word combinations. Analyzing the example terribly cold weather, O. Jespersen states that the words are not on the same footing. The word weather is grammatically most important, while the words cold and terribly are subordinate to it. The word weather is defined by the word cold, and the word cold is defined by the word terribly. Thus, we have three ranks: the word weather is primary, the word cold is secondary, and the word terribly is tertiary.
O, Jespersen discusses only word groups formed by combinations of primaries with secondaries. He distinguishes two main types of combinations in which a secondary is joined to a primary - junction and nexus. In a junction, the joining of the two elements is so close that it is often substituted by a separate word, e.g.:
The warmest season - summer (O. Jespersen).
In traditional grammar, O. Jespersen's junction corresponds to subordination.
In a nexus, something new is added to the conception contained in the primary. In other words, nexus designates predicative relations. According to O. Jespersen, nexus falls into two subtypes: independent and dependent. He considers a nexus to be independent when it forms a whole sentence, i.e. when it gives a complete bit of information, e.g.
The dog barks (O. Jespersen).
A dependent nexus, in his opinion, forms only part of a sentence, e.g.:
I hear the dog bark (O. Jespersen).
Although O. Jespersen draws a distinction between different levels of subordination and clearly opposes subordination and predication, he fails to define the word combination.
This drawback is overcome by L. Bloomfield. However, L. Bloomfield's definition cannot be considered a happy one, for defining a word combination as a free form which consists of two or more free forms, he lumps together predicative and non-predicative combinations of words, as is evident from his classification of word combinations into endocentric and exocentric.
In endocentric word combinations, according to L. Bloomfield, at least one of the components (or both) has a function coinciding with the function of the word combination as a whole, e.g.: poor Maggie, where the component Maggie can stand for the whole word combination poor Maggie. Cf:
Poor Maggie sat down again. (G. Eliot). —» Maggie sat down again.
Or: he and his wife, where both components he and his wife can stand for the whole group he and his wife. Cf.:
He and his wife listened to the six o'clock news (A.S. Hornby). —*• He listened to the six o 'clock news. His wife listened to the six o 'clock news.
Exocentric word combinations unite such components neither of which can stand for the whole word combination. Here we have:
1) predicative combinations, e.g.: Catherine blushed (E. Hemingway), which is not equivalent either to Catherine or to blushed;
2) prepositional combinations, e.g.; He won't take you with him (St. Minot), where we cannot omit either the preposition with or the pronoun him. We cannot say:
*He won't take you him.
*He won't take you with.
As you see, both endocentric and exocentric combinations comprise heterogeneous phenomena. Endocentric combinations include subordinate and coordinate groups of words; exocentric combinations include predicative and prepositional groups of words.
© 2014-2022 — Студопедия.Нет — Информационный студенческий ресурс. Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав (0.008)
It is not settled yet whether the word combination is a specific unit of syntax. Three interpretations have been put forth:
1) the word combination is not a specific unit of syntax;
syntax studies nothing but sentences;
2) the word combination is the only unit of syntax;
3) the word combination is one of syntactic units.
F.I. Buslaev, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya, V.L. Kaushanskaya and her co-authors are of opinion that syntax deals with sentences only. The exclusion of word combinations from the sphere of syntax, according to A.I. Smirnitsky, causes a disregard of the rules of joining words that exist irrespective of the fact whether a word combination makes part of a sentence or not.
F.F. Fortunatov and A.M. Peshkovsky, on the contrary, are of opinion that the word combination is the only syntactic unit. If the word combination were the only syntactic unit, it would not be clear how to treat one-word sentences. A.M. Peshkovsky looks upon them as a specific kind of word combination, which is theoretically wrong.
However, the existence of one-word sentences is not the most important argument against restricting the sphere of syntax to word combinations. The main drawback of the conception lies in the fact that it does not differentiate between the word combination and the sentence. And they must be distinguished because they are different: the word combination represents a naming unit of language [V.V. Vinogradov; N.Y. Shvedova; O.B. Sirotinina; M.Y. Blokh], the sentence is a means of communication [O. Jespersen; A. Gardiner; Y.M. Skrebnev],
We regard the word combination as one of syntactic units, alongside of words, sentences, etc.
Words That Form Word Combinations
Another debatable problem is what language units can build up a word combination. Most foreign linguists think that a word combination is a unity of any words, including the group 'preposition + noun* [S. Greenbaum; D. Crystal].
Combinations with prepositions do play an important role in all languages, analytical in particular. But the essence of the word combination consists in the adjunct narrowing the notion rendered by the head, e.g.:
English books (A.S. Hornby).
Prepositions as function words cannot narrow the notion comprised in the following noun or noun equivalent because they are semantically, syntactically, and phonetically weak. Hence, they should be excluded from the sphere of word combination [V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik; G.N. Vorontsova].
Following the majority of Russian linguists, we think that the term 'word combination' can be applied only to such groups of words that contain at least two notional words forming a semantic and a grammatical whole.
Syntactic Relations That Build Up Word Combinations
Two or more notional words can be joined by means of predication, coordination, accumulation, apposition, and subordination. The question arises if all these syntactic relations build up word combinations. Western linguists of the past made no distinction between a sentence, i.e. a predicative group of words, and a word combination. Nowadays, things have changed. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, D. Crystal writes, 'A phrase is a syntactic construction which typically contains more than one word, but which lacks the subject-predicate structure usually found in a clause.' Most Russian linguists postulate a separate existence of 'sentence' and 'word combination' because they serve different purposes. A sentence is based on predication, and predication consists in saying something about
something so that its purpose is communicative. A word combination has no such aim. It is employed for naming things qualities, actions, etc.
True, some linguists [V.G. Gak; T.A. Tulina] say that the naming function does not differentiate the word combination and the sentence, for the sentence is also a kind of name. It is the name of a situation.
There is no denying the fact that every level of language structure contributes to the creation of naming units. But in some language units the naming function is primary (e.g. in words and word combinations); in others — it is secondary (e.g. in sentences).
The problem of coordinate groups of words is controversial, too. Traditionally, linguists single out coordinate groups of words into a special type of word combinations [H. Sweet; E. Kruisinga; L.S. Barkhudarov; V.A. Beloshapkova].
V.N. Yartseva leaves the question open, saying that even if such groups as men and women could be referred to word combinations, one should bear in mind their specific nature.
Really, as opposed to word combinations proper, each component of a coordinate group of words renders a new, but homogeneous notion. Cf.:
English books (A.S. Hornby).
1
But: books and notebooks
That's why we exclude coordinate groups of words from word combinations. [See on this point: V.V. Vinogradov; V.N. Zhigadio, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik; O.B. Sirotinina].
Accumulation, in our opinion, does not form a word combination either. Just like coordination, accumulation unites independent notions that are heterogeneous, into the bargain.
Neither do we recognize the existence of appositive word combinations, e.g.: Uncle Jack (O. Wilde). Qualifying apposition as a kind of attribute [H. Sweet; N.Y. Filitcheva], syntactic tradition proceeds from the assumption that it is always easy to draw a line of demarcation between the head and the adjunct. However, it is rather rare the case. Already A.M. Peshkovsky has drawn the attention of linguists to numerous difficulties in finding the apposition and the element to which it is apposed. And even nowadays linguists are still at variance as to the right answer to this question. Thus, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya think that the apposition is constituted by the proper noun; V.N. Zhigadio, I.P. Tvanova and L.L. lofik - by the common noun. I.G. Saprykina is right: the differentiation of the head and adjunct in appositive groups of words is impossible because both components are logically equal: they give different names to one and the same person or thing, e.g.: Uncle Jack (O.Wilde).
Only groups of words based on subordination can be regarded as word combinations because only subordination unites notional words into a semantic and grammatical whole. The semantic integrity of a subordinate word combination manifests itself in the fact that its components render one notion: the head names it, and the adjunct narrows it.
The semantic integrity leads to the grammatical consolidation of the components of a subordinate word combination as a result of which it is only the head that can substitute the whole word combination. For instance, instead of saying: The little boy was tying in bed (K. Mansfield), we can say: The boy was lying in bed, with the head boy representing the subordinate word combination little boy. The second variant, *The little was lying in bed, with the adjunct little standing for the subordinate word combination little boy is out of the question because it fails to render any independent notion, but serves the purpose of narrowing the notion of the following head boy.
Valency
The valency of the head determines the occurrence of this or that adjunct. The term 'valency' was originally used in chemistry for the combinatory potential of atoms. The French linguist L. Tesniere introduced it into linguistics. According to L. Tesniere, only verbs possess valency characteristics, e.g.:
(Toby) shook his head (S. Sheldon).
Nowadays, linguists have come to the conclusion that valency is not restricted to verbs. Adjectives and nouns possess valency characteristics, too. Cf.:
. (but I'm) capable of making my own decisions (S. Sheldon).
(It's got) a sort of greenish blue roof(D. Crystal, D. Davy).
© 2014-2022 — Студопедия.Нет — Информационный студенческий ресурс. Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав (0.007)
Collocability (lexical valency) is the aptness of lingual units to appear in different combinations when forming lingual units of the upper level. Lexical collocability is the realization of syntagmatic relations.
Word-combination is the combination of two or more words, organized according to the laws of a given language, which represent complex nominations of various referents.
All word-combinations are divided into free and bound ones.
Free word-combinations preserve the lexical meaning of their notional components: to read a book, a piece of bread, a piece of chalk.
Set expression – the lexical meanings of its components are weak or lost: as hard as nails, железная дорога, бить баклуши.
Phraseological units are set word-groups with idiomatic or partially idiomatic meaning.
Features of phraseological units:
1) structural criterion:
- structural invariability or morphological stability means the permanence of lexical composition, no (or few) substitutions of components are possible: to bend over backward to do something (*turn over sideward). The are also strict restrictions on the componential extension and grammatical changes of components of phraseological units: a white elephant (*a big white elephant) ‘an expensive but useless thing’, from head to foot (*feet);
2) semantic criterion:
- phraseological units are characterized by semantic unity, that means that the meaning in phraseological unit is created by mutual interaction of elements, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components,e.g. to kick the bucket ‘to die’, to be in deep water ‘in trouble or difficulty’;
- phraseological meaning conveys a single concept and this makes phraseological units similar to words, e.g. in a brown study ‘gloomy’;
3) syntactic criterion:
- phraseological units are characterized by syntactic fixity, that means that phraseological units are functionally inseparable and like words they perform one common syntactic function in the sentence, for example, the phraseological unit off the record ‘not yet official’functions as an adverb;
- phraseological units are characterized by ready made reproduction; they cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready made units, e.g. red tape ‘bureaucratic methods’, to get rid of, to take place, to lead the dance, to take care.
Features of free word-combinations and phraseological units can be seen in Table 6.
Free word combinations | Phraseological units |
to get one’s foot in the door | to get one’s foot in the door “to get your first opportunity to work in a particular organization or industry” |
1. They are motivated | 1. They are non-motivated or partially motivated |
2. Semantic compatibility | 2. Semantic incompatibility |
3. Separateness of nomination, each word realizes its own meaning | 3. Integrity of nomination, the meaning of the whole phrase cannot be deduced from the meanings of its components |
4. Variability is possible in them to have one’s feet in the door | 4. Variability is impossible in them (with some exceptions) |
5.Substitution is possible in them to get one’s hand in the doorway | 5. Substitution is impossible in them: *hand in the doorway |
6. They are made up according to the existing syntactic pattern | 6. They are isolated from the existing syntactic pattern |
7. They are made up by the speaker, they are productive | 7. They can be freely made up in speech but they are reproduced as ready-made units; they are absolutely non-productive |
Set non-phraseological units stand midway between free word combinations and phraseological units, e.g. strong sales, to commit suicide, good luck, black coffee.They may be characterized in the following way:
1) they are set because they are not made up in speech but are used as ready made units;
2) they are non-phraseological because the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the meanings of its components;
3) they are transitional, semi-productive.
Set expressions traditionally make the subject of phraseology.
Phraseology – is a branch of linguistics studying set-expressions and collocability of words of the language.
Phraseologisms are culturally marked, they bear a charge of country-specific information, that’s why they often make the subject of linguistic studies of culture.
Phraseological stock of the language is a valuable source of information about the culture of its people as phraseologisms always reflect views and attitudes of the people, social order and ideology of the epoch in an indirect way. They preserve the history of the people or ethnic group, their mode of life, morals, myths, customs, rites, rituals, habits, e.g. Make hay while the sun shines. – Готовь сани летом, а телегу зимой. The history of many phraseologisms is an interesting record of the nation’s past, of its way of life, customs and traditions. Some phraseological units are connected with commerce, e.g. to talk shop, to make the best of the bargain, to have all one’s goods in the shop window, a drug on the market, to shut up shop. Many phraseological units are associated with the sea (the waves): e.g. plain sailing, to be all at sea, to touch bottom, to drop the pilot, to nail one’s colours to the mast, to sail under false colours, the coast is clear. Other phraseological units were borrowed from the Bible, e.g. the root of all evil, daily bread.
Cognitive linguistics studies phraseological units to reconstruct concepts, learn how man’s thought works, how cognition develops, and define mentality of the given ethnic group. Mentality is a set of thinking processes, national way of perceiving and understanding outer reality which includes special world-mapping. Thus, most proverbs are the stereotypes of the nation consciousness, e.g. Работа не волк, в лес не убежит VS Business before pleasure.And not all proverbs are studied but only those which are relevant for a modern consciousness. Relevance is proofed experimentally. Thus, such phraseological units as Time is money, Don’t put all eggs in one basket, Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today, God helps those who help themselves are frequent in modern English, and such phraseological units to die in harness ‘to die while actively engaged in work or duty’ or to sow one’s (wild) oats ‘to indulge in dissipation while young’ are irrelevant, out-of-date for a modern English speaker.
The word-group in both contrasted languages consists of two or more grammatically connected notional parts of speech expressing some content. Word-groups in English and Ukrainian may be: 1) syntactically free combinations of wordslike to learn much, to learn hard, to learn quickly, to learn well, to learn there/here, etc. or 2) idiomatically bound(constant) collocations, i. e. unchanged for the given sense word-combinations as to have dinner/supper, to take measures, to throw light, Hobson's choice, etc.
Free word-groups or word-combinations exist alongside of prepositional phrases which are often considered even to be of the same nature as the idiomatic word-groups [7]. Genuine syntactically free word-groups, unlike prepositional phrases, are used to name actions (quick reading), objects (a new hat), state of objects (the house ablaze), number or quantity (two thirds, the first three); also they may give characteristics of an action (singing well, going quickly, arriving first — новий капелюх, йому/Миколі страшно, дві третіх, перші три, швидко йти, гарно читати).
1. Simple or elemental word-groups which consist of two immediate components /ICs/ connected with the help of one grammatical means (synthetic or analytical): this book — these books, to see her; to read well; nice flowers; cotton yarn, people of rank; ця книжка — ці книжки, бачити її; гарно читати, дуже добре, зайти у фойє, вийти з метро.
2. Equally common in English and Ukrainian are word-groups of com plicated structure and grammatical form, i. e. with two ways of gram matical connection of their ICs or expressing different grammatical rela tions, eg: writing and reading letters (co-ordinate and analytical forms of connection), these books and magazines (synthetic and co-ordinate
connection), to see Mike driving a car (analytical and predicative) — ці книжки та журнали, застати двері зачиненими, бачити когось у метро, носити кімоно останньої моди.
There are also structurally more complicated free word-groups in both languages, eg: those long sentences for you to analyze and translate — ті довгі речення тобі для аналізу й перекладу. In this English word-group and its Ukrainian semantic equivalent one can identify different grammatical relations: a) attributive (those long sentences) and predicative (sentences for you to analyze). Besides, the ways of syntactic connection are different: subordination with synthetic agreement in the initial part (those long sentences) and co-ordination (to read and analyze) in the second part of the word-group. In the Ukrainian equivalent word-group there is no secondary predication available in the English variant. Hence, there is no mostly qualitative and quantitative correlation between the means of grammatical connection of different constituents in English vs. Ukrainian free word-groups. Since present-day English is mainly analytical by its structure, the predominant means of its grammatical connection in word-groups are naturally analytical. They are syndetic (prepositional) and asyndetic (syntactic placement). These two forms of analytical connection are very often of equal semantic relevance, as a result of which they are often interchangeable, as in the following substantival word-groups:
Читайте также: