Home‎ > ‎Linguistics Studies‎ > ‎Volume 26‎ > ‎Theory of Language‎ > ‎

Innovative Processes in the Present-day English Language in Comparison with Ukrainian one: Innovations and Pseudo-innovations

 © The Editorial Council and Editorial Board of Linguistic Studies

Linguistic Studies
Volume 26, 2013, pp.  18-24

Innovative Processes in the Present-day English Language in Comparison with Ukrainian one: Innovations and Pseudo-innovations

Putilina Oksana

Article first published online: March 20, 2013 


Additional information

 Author Information: 

Oksana L. Putilina, Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor at Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics in Donetsk National University. Correspondence: o.l.putilina@gmail.com

Citation: 
Putilina O.Innovative Processes in the Present-day English Language in Comparison with Ukrainian one: Innovations and Pseudo-innovations [Text] // Linguistic Studies collection of scientific papers / Donetsk National University Ed. by A. P. Zahnitko. – Donetsk : DonNU, 2013. – Vol. 26. – Pp. 18-24. – ISBN 966-7277-88-7

Publication History:
Volume first published online: 
March 20, 2013

Article received: August 21, 2012, accepted: December 28, 2012 and first published online: March 20, 2013

Annotation.

    The paper denoted to a characterization of innovative / pseudo-innovative and phenomena (Americanisms) processes in Present-day English (in comparison with Ukrainian), an establishing of the nature and causes of changes in the vocabulary, phonetics and orthoepy of English (compared with the Ukrainian), a separation of functioning forms in British and American English (in comparison with Ukrainian), a classifying types of neologisms in both languages.
    Keywords: proper neologism, innovative processes, conversion, neological boom, pseudo-innovations, semantic neologism, syntactic neologism, stylistic neologism, terminological neologism, transnomination, rethinking, phonetic neologism.

Abstract.

INNOVATIVE PROCESSES IN THE PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN COMPARISON WITH UKRAINIAN ONE: INNOVATIONS AND PSEUDO-INNOVATIONS

Oksana Putilina

Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics, Donetsk National University, Donetsk, Ukraine

 

Available 21 August 2012.

 

Abstract

Relevance

Under the global integration that results in strengthening intercultural relations, development of languages, including English and Ukrainian, is a rapid process, in particular on the lexical level, which is not always predictable. Analysis of examples adjusted by many authors, particularly A. Paunder, L. Bauer, R. Lieber et al., who are concerned about this fact, revealed new structural types of lexical items, such as fragmented elements (splinters), a significant number of highly unstable compound nouns with a separate writing, but common unifying accent (block compounds) and a creation on their basis of compound words / pseudo-compound words (other parts of speech), whose self-morphological identity usually defined only within a specific context for the fulfillment of their syntactic role, that is, their appearance has a strengthening influence of analogy in the formation of composites / quasi-composites that can lead to structural changes of lexical units, including the conversion of compound words in derivatives for potentially unlimited number of new words with unstable and unpredictable grammatically-categorical indicators.

This process is one of the differential features of present-day English, especially British (BE) and American (AmE) variants as competitors that stand out against other variants of English (such as the Australian or Canadian ones) with multiplicity of media, geographical area due to extralinguistic factors of their spread – as the classic, 'original ', 'true' English (as claimed by some supporters of BE) in the status of one of the languages ​​of international communication and as less conservative language with signs of language-cosmopolitan, that absorbed into itself the elements of other languages​​, which directly contacted, and in the role of the language of the powerful state in the world (AmE), respectively. Lack of substantial research in this area makes the relevance of proposed research.

Purpose

A comprehensive analysis of innovative processes that currently take place in the English language (as opposed to Ukrainian), primarily on the lexical level, not be possible without the differentiation of specific and borrowed items, events, processes, etc. in modern English in comparison with the Ukrainian that is the purpose of the study.

Methods

This article uses comparative and typological methods.


 

Tasks

The main tasks of the study are a characterization of lexical and phonetical processes in present-day English (in comparison with Ukrainian) and their interpreting pro rata AmE, an establishing of the nature and causes of changes in the vocabulary of English (compared with the Ukrainian), a separation of literary / colloquial functioning BE-form of AmE (in comparison with Ukrainian), a classifying types of neologisms in both languages.

Conclusion

Thus, the great changes taking place in modern English (as well as in Ukrainian), reflect only partially in phonetics and mainly – in the words, which display changes in computer technology (including – related research in space), medicine, in the words relating to those issues that consciously / unconsciously interested and confused by native speakers (eg, the existence of extraterrestrial life), which shows changes in a society, in the political structure of many countries, as well as vocabulary that captures the relationships among people (both in family and in society) – all those areas that determine the existence of contemporary socium (both in English and Ukrainian) and perceived as dominating, essential to reflect its philosophy and its vision of the meaning of the existence and future development.

Perspective

Perspective of this study is to analyze the processes that deepen the internal stratification of modern English and Ukrainian vocabularies as a whole system within each of the languages the whole and its individual variants in English (AM) (British, American, Australian, etc.), the latter more deeper trends in the breeding options for English as a relatively independent entities and strengthening of the sociolinguistic factors that determine the formation of vocabulary as well as language forms exist mainly in the Ukrainian language (UM) (literary and spoken forms (UM) and literary / common, colloquial (AM)) taking into account the relationships between regional, social and situational parameters that lead to the selection of specific lexical items by carriers of both compared languages based on communicative situation.

 

Research highlights

► The paper denoted to a characterization of innovative / pseudo-innovative and phenomena (Americanisms) processes in Present-day English (in comparison with Ukrainian), an establishing of the nature and causes of changes in the vocabulary, phonetics and orthoepy of English (compared with the Ukrainian). ► In the article a separation of functioning forms in British and American English (in comparison with Ukrainian) and a classifying types of neologisms in both languages are characterized.

Keywords: proper neologism, innovative processes, conversion, neological boom, pseudo-innovations, semantic neologism, syntactic neologism, stylistic neologism, terminological neologism, transnomination, rethinking, phonetic neologism.

 

References

Dubenets, E. M. (2003). Lingvisticheskie izmenenija v sovremennom anglijskom jazyke. Moskva: Glossa-Press.

Putilina, О. L. (2011). Innovations in Present-day Ukrainian and English languages (Phonetics. Lexicology. Phraseology). Donetsk: DonNU.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.

Libben, G. & Jarema, G. (2006). The representation and processing of compound words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Müller, S. (2008). The Mental Lexicon. GRIN Verlag.

Putilina, O. (2012). Historical and Contemporary Factors of Innovative Processes in the Present-Day English Language in Comparison with Ukrainian One: Conflict or Cooperation? Linguistic Studies. Donetsk, 25, 89-94.

 

Sources and Abbreviations

Black Star News

CNN (Cable News Network)

Forbes

Minnesota Public Radio

The Washington Post

 

Correspondence: o.l.putilina@gmail.com

Vitae

Oksana L. Putilina, Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor at Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics in Donetsk National University. Her research areas include comparative-historical and typological linguistics, case grammar, cognitive linguistics, universal linguistics, generative grammar.

Article.

Oksana Putilina

УДК 81371+81367.625=811.112.2=811.161.2(075.8)

 

INNOVATIVE PROCESSES IN THE PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN COMPARISON WITH UKRAINIAN ONE: INNOVATIONS AND PSEUDO-INNOVATIONS

 

Стаття присвячена характеристиці інноваційних / псевдоінноваційних процесів і явищ (американізмів) у сучасній англійській мові (у зіставленні з українською), встановленню природи і причин змін у лексичному складі, а також на рівні фонетики й орфоепії англійської мови (порівняно з українською), розмежуванню форм функціонування англійської мови в британському та американському варіантах (у зіставленні з українською), кваліфікуванню типів неологізмів в обох зіставлюваних мовах.

Ключові слова: власне-неологізм, інноваційний процес, конверсія, неологічний бум, псевдоінновації, семантичний неологізм, синтаксичний неологізм, стилістичний неологізм, термінологічний неологізм, трансномінація, переосмислення, фонетичний неологізм.

 

Under the global integration that results in strengthening intercultural relations, development of languages, including English and Ukrainian, is a rapid process, in particular on the lexical level, which is not always predictable. Analysis of examples adjusted by many authors, particularly A. Paunder, L. Bauer, R. Lieber et al., who are concerned about this fact, revealed new structural types of lexical items, such as fragmented elements (splinters), a significant number of highly unstable compound nouns with a separate writing, but common unifying accent (block compounds) and a creation on their basis of compound words / pseudo-compound words (other parts of speech), whose self-morphological identity usually defined only within a specific context for the fulfillment of their syntactic role, that is, their appearance has a strengthening influence of analogy in the formation of composites / quasi-composites that can lead to structural changes of lexical units, including the conversion of compound words in derivatives for potentially unlimited number of new words with unstable and unpredictable grammatically-categorical indicators.

This process is one of the differential features of present-day English, especially British (BE) and American (AmE) variants as competitors that stand out against other variants of English (such as the Australian or Canadian ones) with multiplicity of media, geographical area due to extralinguistic factors of their spread – as the classic, 'original ', 'true' English (as claimed by some supporters of BE) in the status of one of the languages of international communication and as less conservative language with signs of language-cosmopolitan, that absorbed into itself the elements of other languages, which directly contacted, and in the role of the language of the powerful state in the world (AmE), respectively. Lack of substantial research in this area makes the relevance of proposed research.

However, a comprehensive analysis of innovative processes that currently take place in the English language (as opposed to Ukrainian), primarily on the lexical and phonetic levels, not be possible without the differentiation of specific and borrowed items, events, processes, etc. in modern English in comparison with the Ukrainian that is the purpose of our study.

It is quite obvious there is a determination of the main tasks, namely: a characterization of lexical and phonetical processes in present-day English (in comparison with Ukrainian) and their interpreting pro rata AmE, an establishing of the nature and causes of changes in the vocabulary of English (compared with the Ukrainian), a separation of literary / colloquial functioning BE-form of AmE (in comparison with Ukrainian), a classifying types of neologisms in both languages.

It should be noted that the repeated emphasis on the difference between BE and AmE as crucial in today's English language development has serious theoretical basis, which gradually formed on the basis for fixing the regularity of the differential expressions of features in both variants of English language at all levels: from phonetics to

syntax. The reason for extension of the active scope of the AmE primarily driven by extralinguistic factors: the dominating position of the United States on the world economic market, the active politically in the international political arena and, of course, a huge influence on other nations through the movies, music and other areas of culture.

In this regard, we note the existence of a large group of words that can not be called new in the U.S., but they recently entered the active vocabulary of world English-speaking community (outside their own States and Canada): majorly (slang extremely) ‘надзвичайно, неймовірно, класно’ has gained such popularity that has joined the list of new words in English without even a mark AmE in many dictionaries.

If we continue the theme of lexical changes and new processes at this level, the massive borrowing of American words occur in areas related to business, all possible manifestations of youth sub-culture, music (and not only pop, as noted by V. Yelisejeva, but also in other directions especially the exponential trend becomes since the late 90's about hip hop and R&B, as well as the 70th – beg. 80th marked dominance a soul), Internet and computer technology, and properly is one of the most striking trends in contemporary BE.

Since the beginning AmE and BE were not differentiated, which explained that the first colonists from the Great Britain brought with them the language that was native to them and which, of course, spoke in England (without taking into account the many Irish whose speech was different from the English language), ie language on the exit of the 17th century that is fundamental in this context, because the English of that time has demonstrated exceptional variety and noncodification, varying of the time very vague idea of "normal" depending on the location (County) and social segment of the population belonged to a speaker, and even much more so than now, which is visible even in the analysis of spelling, grammar and overall style of W. Shakespeare`s and J. Milton`s texts, whose works traditionally considered to be models of contemporary standard written speech.

Further deepening of these processes were stimulated with the influx of immigrants to North America from England, because the processes that occurred in the 17th century, not only contributed to achieving the only acceptable norm, but also provoked further changes during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and differentiation of various variants of the English, from which began to form AmE as a kind of integrity, as opposed to BE. Important, if not dominating, role played in this political-territorial and socio-economic factors, such as a community, the area of ​​integrity, confrontation with British colonization policy in the New World and the independence, the beginning of a new independent state and with it – the origin of national ideas and laying the principles of national identity – understanding ourselves as a nation other than the British, though genetically related, a rapid economic growth and the emergence of the concept of the American dream etc. Understandably, all this strengthened the differentiation and, in some sense, the confrontation of two variants of the English.

It is noteworthy that the differences between BE and AmE easy to find, but remember that expressions of this divergence is not proper innovations, whatever the level of language they are concerned, – is only a manifestation of the internal stratification of the English. Let's briefly list the features of pseudo-innovations that is separate from the real innovation by phonetic, lexical, grammatical and other levels:

1. In the field of spelling differential features of two versions were, in fact, codified by the American lexicographer Noah Webster (1758-1843), who suggested replacement of suffixes in AmE, including -er instead of -re, for example, center ‘центр’ (AmE) instead cent (BE), meter ‘метр’ (AmE) instead met (BE), theater ‘театр’(AmE) instead theat (BE); -our -or, for example, favour ‘послуга’ (BE) favor (AmE), honour ‘честь’ (BE) → honor (AmE), labour ‘праця’ (BE) → labor (AmE).

2. It belongs to the linguist as an attempt to gradual replacement of French borrowings at the vocabulary if not with actually English words, then at least relatively adapted to the English model lexemes (check ‘чек’ instead cheque, connection instead connexion ‘зв’язок’, jail ‘в’язниця’ instead gaol, story ‘поверх’ instead storey etc.). It should be noted that lexical differences relate mainly those areas of slang words or standard English, that means strictly American or British reality purely in the social, political, economic, technical and artistic field [Müller 2008], for example: Tube – Subway in London, but their majority is already evidence of innovative processes in both versions of English, not their internal differentiation, the most of such lexemes origins in AmE, even if they subsequently lose its expressive of American origin, getting to the active vocabulary of representatives of all English society (as evidenced by the analysis of factual material), eg: Tinseltown (AmE) Hollywood (normative English and BE), ride-in – protest against discrimination in travel on buses for whites in the U.S. (the end of 60th of the 20th century) and in the southern states until today (especially in Utah).

3. In the field of normative grammar differences between American and British versions are not consistent and they can be reduced generally to:

1) avoiding by native AmE set of verbal forms in conjunction with collective nouns, as Ukrainian language media does, resulting in a literal translation of British constructions sometimes seems rather strange (cf., the audience were ‘публіка були’ (BE) – the audience was ‘публіка була’ (AmE), the government have ‘уряд мають’ (BE) – the government has ‘уряд має’ (AmE))

[Access mode:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904205.html?hpid=topnews];

2) the Americans more often than the British form nouns from verbs by means of the conversion (in Ukrainian grammar we have instead morpho-syntactic way of creation) (cf., a research ‘дослідження’ → to research ‘досліджувати, вивчати’, an author ‘автор’ → to author ‘створювати’);

3) in AmE replacement of shall by will in the Future Tense forms and, accordingly, should by would in Future in the Past Tense forms is typical;

4) the Americans speakers prefer to have got instead of single-component have ‘мати’ and the compound have gotten usually used in cases where the British use became ‘став (стала, стало), почав (почала, почало)’.

Overall, much more significant, according to many linguists dealing with differentiation of these two variants of English, is the general attitude of native speakers to the concept of grammatical correctness [Lieber, Štekauer 2009]: the Americans who have received the appropriate level of education, seek to follow the rules, while the British tend to in order to break them (but this applies only to spoken communication, because the speech of American and British media demonstrate the opposite).

4. In phonetics features of two options are less visible in pronunciation of individual sounds, but more expressive in rhythmics and melody of speech. In AmE the following features are characteristic:

1) vowel in words like God ‘Бог’, got ‘отримав (отримала, отримало)’, rob ‘грабувати’ usually pronounced more like [a:] in father, what as [ɔ] in the cloth ‘тканина’

[Access mode: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=135040267];

2) u-like sound in words like dew ‘роса’, duke ‘герцог’, new ‘новий’ most Americans rhymes with too ‘теж, занадто’, and not with you ‘ти’, ie pronounce it like [u:], and not like [ju:]

[Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/inidaily/ken-kamen-avoid-the-financial-noise];

3) a middle combination of sounds tt, like in butter ‘масло’, AmE speakers pronounce very similar to [d] [Access mode: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=135040267];

4) postvokal r, like in car ‘машина’ or ‘картка’, Americans are often overlooked, unlike the British, and pronounce in his place a certain fuzzy r-like sound [Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/celeb2011/randy-jackson-reveals-his-american-idol];

5) melodics of American speech differs from the BE less variability in pitch (of tone). At the same time this melodic contour of the end of a sentence in AmE departure from the BE

[Access mode: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=135040267%; http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/05/amsale.aberra.designer/index.html ; http://video.forbes.com/fvn/celeb2011/randy-jackson-reveals-his-american-idol];

6) in index of variability (alternating of accented and unaccented syllables) American speech inherent in preserving the words of three syllables or more secondary accent, and they pronounce unstressed syllables more clearly, cf.: se`creta`ry (AmE) – se`cret'ry (BE), e`xtrao`rdina`ry (AmE) – extr'o`rdin'ry (BE), la`b'rato`ry (AmE) – la`b'rat'ry (BE) або labo`rat'ry (BE) [Access modehttp://video.forbes.com/fvn/business/inside-frank-gehrys-skyscraper; http://www.blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/7112/2011-02-08.html].

In contrast to the mentioned speech characteristics of representatives of AmE and BE, pointing not to the development of innovative processes in modern English, but only on the equivariant contrast, there are several indicators of the new active processes in the English language as a whole at different levels of language, namely:

1. In the field of phonetics and orthoepy there is currently a tendency to change the features of pronunciation of certain sounds and combinations of sounds under the influence of AmE and some of the related option extralinguistic factors [Levelt 1993], cited above. As noted E. Dubenets, which was a direct participant of the team conducted a similar study, revealing in this regard is the speech of teachers and students of Southern England [Дубенец 2003: 5]. These changes are equally affecting vowels and consonants, so conditionally can be divided into changes in the system of English consonants, namely:

1) after vowel a consonant r is increasingly beginning to articulate, although he has not actually pronounced, eg.: car [kα:r] ‘машина’, heart [hαr:t] ‘серце’

[Access mode: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=135040267];

2) there is a hlotalizatsiya of deaf breakthrough consonants p, t before vowels: butter [´bʌ?ə] ‘масло’, happy [´hæ?i] ‘щасливий’, matter [´mæ?ə] ‘справа, питання’, and before consonants in the middle of words: hopeless [´həu?lis] ‘безнадійний’

[Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/business/inside-frank-gehrys-skyscraper];

3) appearance of the intrusive sound [r] in word combinations, in which initial vowel of next word comes after the final vowel in the first word, eg., idea of, by analogy with compound words here and there, where r before vowel sounds. In addition, today the intrusive [r] sounds after the majority of words ending on r before vowel and even in the middle of word: drawing [´drɔ:riŋ] ‘малюнок

[Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/inidaily/ken-kamen-avoid-the-financial-noise];

4) voiced utterance of sound [∫] in intervocalic position in geographical names: Asia [´eiʒə] ‘Азія’ [Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/forbeslife/the-worlds-new-largest-cruise-ship];

5) disappearance of sounds [t], [d] at the end of words: old man [´əul ´mæn] ‘стара людина’, half past five [´hα:f pα:s ´faiv] ‘пів на шосту’;

6) disappearance of sound [h] at the beginning of word in an unstressed syllable: have [æv] ‘мати’ (дієслово), him [im] ‘йому’;

7) use of sound [s] instead of [∫] before the letter i, which is part of the suffix: social [´səusəl] ‘соціальний’, negotiate [ni´gəusieit] ‘вести переговори, укладати угоду’ [Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/inidaily/ken-kamen-avoid-the-financial-noise];

8) vocalization / disappearances [i] at the end of words: fill ‘заповнювати’, де [i] близький за звучанням до [v];

9) compounds tu, du, su in words like tube ‘труба’, duke ‘герцог’, suit ‘костюм’ have 2 spellings: [tju:b] [tu:b], [dju:k] – [du:k], [sju:t] – [su:t] [Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/forbeslife/the-worlds-new-largest-cruise-ship];

and in the system of English vocalism:

1) sound [i] goes into [ə] in unstressed position: September [səp´təmbə] ‘вересень’;

2) extension of sound [i] at the end of word: funny [´fʌni:] ‘веселий, кумедний’;

3) secondary accent stored in words with three or more syllables, cf.: interesting [´intə´restiŋ] ‘цікавий’, necessary [´nesə´seri] ‘необхідний

[Access mode: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=135040267];

4) reduction of long vowels (especially at the end of the word and before voiceless consonants): see [si] ‘бачити’, keep [kip] ‘тримати, зберігати’

[Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/forbeslife/selling-a-home-made-of-subway-cars];

5) lengthening of short vowels in preposition to the voiced consonants: big [bi:g] ‘великий’, good [gu:d] ‘добрий’, come [ka:m] ‘приходити’, that is most peculiar to the inhabitants of London [Luoma 2004] [Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/forbeslife/selling-a-home-made-of-subway-cars];

6) lengthening of vowel in adjectives with -ad (South England): bad [bæ:d] ‘поганий’, glad [glæ:d] ‘гідний, задоволений’, sad [sæ:d] ‘похмурий’;

7) diphthong [əu] changed with the sound [u], especially in the speech of young people: soap [sup] ‘мило’;

8) diphthong [uə] changed with the sound [ɔ:], for example, for this reason, sure ‘упевнений’ becomes a homophone shore ‘берег’, and the pronunciation ['∫uə] is old-fashioned;

9) [ju:] → [u:] after fricative consonants and sounds n, m: resume [rə´zu:m] ‘резюме, висновок’, musicmu:zik] ‘музика’, news [nu:z] ‘новини’;

10) vowel in monosyllabic, at least – disyllabic (the second silent vowel) words such as class ‘класс’, half ‘половина’, pass ‘перепустка’, dance ‘танець’ before a fricative consonant and combination of sounds with fricative usually pronounced like in the word bad ‘поганий’ ([æ]) and not as [a:] in father батько’ [Access mode: http://video.forbes.com/fvn/inidaily/ken-kamen-avoid-the-financial-noise].

The general tendency, inherent to phonetic level of modern English, is convergence of pronunciation and spelling, for example: oftenɔftən] ‘часто’.

2. At the lexical level, there is rapid development of English vocabulary, which was the primary cause of scientific-technical revolution (from the end of 80s of the 20th century) that triggered the emergence of an array of words in science and technology to describe new concepts, which in turn influenced the culture and social relations, so it is not surprising that a large group of new lexemes is terminological neologisms, eg.: sleep-teaching ‘навчання уві сні’, telecommuter ‘консультант, дослідник, програміст, пов’язаний за допомогою комп’ютера з установою’, to troublshoot ‘усувати неполадки в роботі комп’ютера’ etc. However, new words and phrases can occur in order to create expression, having been emotionally neutral counterpart (descriptive word or reverse), ie stylistic neologisms: brain-drain ‘виїзд науковців з країни (рос. «утечка мозгов»)’, trigger-happy ‘войовничий’, baby-kisser ‘політикан, який вдається до будь-яких хитрощів, щоб зацікавити виборців’ and so on.

In the process of creating new lexical items, there are three ways:

а) change of meaning, ie the use of existing lexical unit for naming the new object (rethinking or semantic neologism): an umbrella1) парасолька від дощу; 2) авіаційне прикриття; 3) політичне прикриття;

b) modified form, ie introducing a new sign to denote an object that already has a name (transnomination). The main scope – American slang: трущоби slums – ghettoinner city; burned-out ‘смертельно втомлений’;

с) changes in form and content (proper neologismsthe bulk of new items): UFO ‘НЛО’, saucerman ‘іншопланетянин’. Such neologisms can have 2 options: 1) the word completely loses the old meaning and used only with the new semantics, eg.: sophisticated lost its meaning "one who behaves unnaturally" and has become a new positive meaning "modern, technologically progressive" (sometimes also perceived as a synonym for expensive ‘дорогий’); 2) new and old values ​​exist in the semantic structure of word, eg., the word mafia has expanded its meaning and now it refers "any secret society, closed circle (direct value), clan, group", resulting in a type of emerging constructions like literary mafia ‘літературна мафія’, trade mafia ‘торгова мафія’, etc.

Given the diversity of possible manifestations of innovative processes at the lexical level of modern English (in comparison with the Ukrainian), we should speak about their 4 main types, namely:

1) phonological (phonetic) neologisms, which are created from single sounds and they are "strong" neologisms [Дубенец 2003: 25]. This group includes tokens formed by onomatopoeia, sometimeswith the addition of morphemes of classical languages​​, eg.: sis-boombah ‘видовищні види спорту (особливо футбол)’ – formed as imitation of sounds, shouts that issue for the fans for encouragement players; to whee ‘хвилюватися’ – comes from the exclamation expressing admiration; rah-rah ‘широка коротка спідниця’ – up sounds that create the girls during a marching at sports events and shows where they are dressed in short wide skirts;

2) borrowings, which also belong to the "strong" neologisms, especially phonetic borrowings. Their sound compositions are not adapted to the norms of English: karaoke (from the Japanese language) (empty musica sound system with pre-recorded soundtrack of popular music which allows an individual to sing along with it) (cf. in Ukrainian language брифінг, маркетинг, менеджер, that came from the English). Typical signs of such neologisms are the lack of semantic motivation and atypical morphological division, eg.: word hamburger for native speakers consists of two morphemesham and burger, while in German, from which it originates, is a combination of Hamburg + er. The same group belong to barbarisms (unassimilated units) like intifada (Arabic) ‘інтифада’ (uprising in Arab countries) or Islamic Jihad (Arabic) ‘ісламський джихад’ (group of Islamic extremist organizations in the Middle East) and tracing such as gliding time (German) ‘змінний графік’;

3) semantic neologisms created by changing the value with the preservation of word form, cf.: cosmetic ‘косметичний’ has a new meaning"decorative" (cosmetic repair ‘косметичний ремонт’, that caused an establishment of some other synonymic neologisms with the same value: redecorating, face-lift, etc.) and "misleading / hypocritical / false" (сosmetic measures, сosmetic steps, сosmetic actions ‘косметичні засоби / заходи’);

4) syntactic neologisms formed by means of syntactic (in terms of English grammar) / morphological and morpho-syntactic (grammar of Ukrainian position) ways, such as compounding, conversion, affixation, abbreviation, reverse derivation etc. morphological neologisms, and phraseological ways, as a result of which occurs phrasesphraseological neologisms (scope of technique, especially space, politics, education, 97% of which occur in terminology / terminologizated constructions) [Libben, Jarema 2006], eg.: off-the-wall ‘нетрадиційний, незвичний’, middle-of-the-road ‘поміркований’ (morphological neologisms), to play Russian roulette ‘вести ризиковану гру’, double zero ‘повне знищення зброї ближнього радіуса дії’, Fourth World ‘малорозвинуті країни Африки, Азії, Латинської Америки’ (from a speech by Robert Strange McNamara, American businessman, politician, Republican, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the reign of John Kennedy and Lyndon Jones) (phraseological neologisms) and so on.

It should be stressed once again that the neologisms, which are a central feature of the innovative processes that indicate the rapid development of English (as well as Ukrainian), which linguists have been dubbed a neological boom, are widely used and favorable conditions for active formation (because a significant percentage of them appears similar to existing ones) on the pages of periodicals to the powerful emotional impact on audiences, to establish active interaction with it (for this purpose any English-language periodical that is meant to be higher for the "yellow press" has the electronic equivalent with constantly updated information throughout the day and the opportunity for readers to leave comments or to communicate directly with the authors of articles on-line). It is not surprising that the vocabulary of these publications has been made a huge English-speaking audience around the world, getting into colloquial speech of readership, and then – to the literary language. Of course, not the entire volume of new words and word combinations is becoming an integral part of the literary language – about 50% of neologisms disappear, and those entrenched in the literary version of its component lose their novelty over time.

Thus, the great changes taking place in modern English (as well as in Ukrainian), reflect only partially in phonetics and mainly – in the words, which display changes in computer technology (including – related research in space), medicine, in the words relating to those issues that consciously / unconsciously interested and confused by native speakers (eg, the existence of extraterrestrial life), which shows changes in a society, in the political structure of many countries, as well as vocabulary that captures the relationships among people (both in family and in society) – all those areas that determine the existence of contemporary socium (both in English and Ukrainian) and perceived as dominating, essential to reflect its philosophy and its vision of the meaning of the existence and future development.

Perspective of this study is to analyze the processes that deepen the internal stratification of modern English and Ukrainian vocabularies as a whole system within each of the languages the whole and its individual variants in English (AM) (British, American, Australian, etc.), the latter more deeper trends in the breeding options for English as a relatively independent entities and strengthening of the sociolinguistic factors that determine the formation of vocabulary as well as language forms exist mainly in the Ukrainian language (UM) (literary and spoken forms (UM) and literary / common, colloquial (AM)) taking into account the relationships between regional, social and situational parameters that lead to the selection of specific lexical items by carriers of both compared languages based on communicative situation.

References. 

References

Дубенец 2003: Дубенец, Э.М. Лингвистические изменения в современном английском языке [Текст] / Э. М. Дубенец. – М. : «Глосса-Пресс», 2003. – 256 с. ISBN 5-7651-0088-0

Путіліна 2011: Путіліна, О.Л. Інновації в сучасних українській та англійській мовах (Фонетика. Лексикологія. Фразеологія). Навчальний посібник для студентів вищих навчальних закладів [Текст] / О. Л. Путіліна / За ред. А. П. Загнітка. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2011. – 277 с.

Levelt 1993: Levelt, W.J.M. Speaking : from intention to articulation [Text] / W. J. MLevelt. – Cambridge (Mass.) : MIT Press, 1993. – 584 pp. – ISBN 0-262-12137-9 (HB)

Libben, Jarema 2006: Libben, G., Jarema, G. The representation and processing of compound words [Text] / G. Libben, G. Jarema. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2006. – 242 pp. – ISBN 0-19-928506-3

Lieber, Štekauer 2009: Lieber, R., Štekauer, P. The Oxford handbook of compounding [Text] / R. Lieber, P. Štekauer. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2009. – 691 pp. – ISBN 978-0-19-921987-2

Luoma 2004: Luoma, S. Assessing speaking [Text] / S. Luoma. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2004. – 212 pp. – ISBN 0 521 80052 8 hardback

Müller 2008: Müller, S. The Mental Lexicon [Text] / S. Müller. – GRIN Verlag, 2008. – 56 pp. – ISBN 978-3-638-94517-2

Putilina 2012: Putilina, O. Historical and Contemporary Factors of Innovative Processes in the Present-Day English Language in Comparison with Ukrainian One : Conflict or Cooperation? [Текст] / О. Putilina // Лінгвістичні студії : Зб. наук. праць. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2012. – Випуск 25. – С. 89-94.

 

List of Sources

 

1)         Black Star News

2)         CNN (Cable News Network)

3)         Forbes

4)         Minnesota Public Radio

5)         The Washington Post

 

В статье рассматривается характеристика инновационных / псевдоинновационнных процессов и явлений (американизмов) в современном английском языке (в сопоставлении с украинским), устанавливается природа и причины изменений в лексическом составе, а также на уровне фонетики и орфоэпии английского языка (в сравнении с украинским), дифференцируются формы функционирования английского языка в британском и американском вариантах (в сопоставлении с украинским), квалифицируются типы неологизмов в сопоставляемых языках.

Ключевые слова: собственно неологизм, инновационный процесс, конверсия, неологический бум, псевдоинновации, семантический неологизм, синтаксический неологизм, стилистический неологизм, терминологический неологизм, трансноминация, переосмысление, фонетический неологизм.

 

The paper denoted to a characterization of innovative / pseudo-innovative and phenomena (Americanisms) processes in Present-day English (in comparison with Ukrainian), an establishing of the nature and causes of changes in the vocabulary, phonetics and orthoepy of English (compared with the Ukrainian), a separation of functioning forms in British and American English (in comparison with Ukrainian), a classifying types of neologisms in both languages.

Keywords: proper neologism, innovative processes, conversion, neological boom, pseudo-innovations, semantic neologism, syntactic neologism, stylistic neologism, terminological neologism, transnomination, rethinking, phonetic neologism.

Надійшла до редакції 21 серпня 2012 року.