Article.
Oksana Putilina УДК 81371+81367.625=811.112.2=811.161.2(075.8) TYPOLOGY OF SYNTACTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC CHANGES IN
PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH LANGUAGE (IN COMPARISON WITH THE UKRAINIAN ONE): REASONS
AND CONSEQUENCES The paper denoted to a characterization of stages and
causes of forming a grammatical, especially syntactic, changes as basis of innovative processes in Present-day English language (in comparison
with Ukrainian), an establishing of the nature and prime causes of changes in
the grammatical organization (proper syntactic features) and on the
sociolinguistic and lexically-semantic levels of English at the stage of its modern development (compared with the
Ukrainian), a separation of functioning forms in British and American English
(in comparison with Ukrainian), a classifying intralinguistic / extralinguistic
reasons of syntactic and sociolinguistic changes of innovative type in both
languages. Keywords: competing ("struggle"),
condensation of phrases, declarative sentence, ellipsis, functional-semantic
groups, global integration, grammatical changes, innovative process,
professional differentiation, pseudo-subordinate independent sentences, racial
profiling, semisuffix (splinter), social stratification of the vocabulary,
sociolinguistic level, syntactical level, variant, word order. Results of global
integration (strengthening intercultural relations, development of world
"live" languages, including English and Ukrainian) are a rapid
process, particularly not only on the lexical but on grammatical (including
syntactic) and sociolinguistic levels that are not always predictable. Analysis
of patterns adjusted by many linguists, especially 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 [Putilina 2012; Putilina 2013]. 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.According
to S. Müller, dynamics of spreading any language necessarily led to the
changes of its lexical and grammatical forms, but if the process of changes in
vocabulary occurs naturally (due to word-formation and borrowing), the
grammatical changes are more noticeable for a native speaker and especially for
those who use a language as a second one [Müller 2008: 9]. A set of
grammatical changes caused "shifts" in all grammatical system of
language, resulting may be particular difficulties that often arise in the
modern media of English (especially in order to whom English is not native) in
the process of reading art texts in lexical and sociolinguistic areas. However, a
comprehensive analysis of innovative processes that currently take place in the
English language (as opposed to Ukrainian), primarily on the grammatical and
sociolinguistic levels [Путіліна 2011; Jespersen 1922; Putilina 2012a], not be
possible without the differentiation of specific syntactical constructions and
features of social stratification of the vocabulary in Present-day 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 grammatical and sociolinguistic processes in Present-day
English (in comparison with Ukrainian) and their lexical interpreting, an establishing
of the nature and causes of grammatical (syntactical) and sociolinguistic
changes in the vocabulary of English (compared with the Ukrainian), a
separation of literary / colloquial functioning form of English (in comparison
with Ukrainian), a classifying types of new constructions in both languages. Grammatical changes
taking place in Present-day English, affect not only the lexical level but also
grammatical, in particuliary syntactic (from phrases to the text). The general
list is rather long and it continues to grow, so it seems appropriate to
name the most important signs typical of Present-day English syntax (in
comparison with Ukrainian) and represented in most variants of English,
including: 1) declarative
sentence can be used as an affirmative-interrogative one with higher intonation
at the end of a sentence (cf. Ukrainian, for which a certain word order and the
presence of specific markers are not principal), for example: You are looking for a vacuum cleaner↑?
‘Ви шукаєте пилосос↑?’ To enhance
the interrogative effect after such construction can be used interrogative
word-sentence like Right? ‘Правильно?’, Correct? ‘Вірно?’; O.K.? ‘Так?’; Eh? ‘Так?’; What?
‘Адже так?’ with the increase of the voice at the end, eg.: But you ↓ talked about it? ↓ When?
‘Але Ви ↓ говорили про це? ↓ Коли?’ [Kastovsky 1991]; 2) change of word
order with a decrease in the number of prepositional constructions in the role
of definition [Дубенец 2003: 13]. One of the typical cases is staging descriptive
titles before the noun – proper name: Foreign Secretary Michael Stuart ‘Міністр закордонних справ Майкл
Стюарт’ (букв. ‘Закордонний міністр’) instead of Michael Stuart, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ‘Майкл
Стюарт, міністр Департаменту закордонних справ’, eighteen-year-old plumber`s mate John Smith ‘вісімнадцятирічний
помічник слюсаря Джон Сміт’ instead of John
Smith, a plumber`s mate eighteen years of age ‘Джон Сміт,
вісімнадцятирічний помічник слюсаря’ (in the latter case, in the Ukrainian
equivalent difference is not noticeable if not take into account the word
order). It is noteworthy that generally the number of adjectives in preposition
to the signified word increases, and in the Ukrainian equivalent structure is
usually not stored: an often-referred to
book ‘книга, на яку часто покликаються’ instead of a book that is often referred to ‘книга, на яку часто
покликаються’; 3) in coordination
predicate form with the subject native speakers follow "the proximity
rule," ie, the predicate agrees in number with the subject the nearest to
it, whereas in the Ukrainian language, this principle does not apply, example: You and I am friends ‘Ти і я – друзі’ (predicate is in the singular, not in the plural because of
it agrees with last pronoun I); Neither you, nor I, nor anyone
knows the answer ‘Ні ви, ні я,
ніхто не знає відповіді’ (predicate
is in the singular, not in the plural because of it agrees with last pronoun anyone) [Shay 2008]; 4) usage of ellipsis
(syntactical reduction when part of nominative word combination functions
instead of a phrase while preserving function and significance of the
assembly), which is saved: ·
the first component, eg.: semi from semi-detached house
‘дім на дві родини’ (except of ellipsis in this case the reduction of the first
component is determinate on the principle of apocope, ie truncation of the
final of the word); zebra from zebra crossing ‘пішохідний перехід’; ·
the second component, eg.: Hill from Capitol Hill
‘Капітолій’; Later! from See you later! ‘Бувай! / Побачимося
пізніше!’; probes from space probes ‘метеорологічні зонди’
[Putilina 2012a: 19-20]. Note that in
elliptical formations may be changes of lexical and grammatical meaning:
component of word combination – substitute of full phrase – can move in another
grammatical category and change the paradigm. To this type belong
substantivated adjectives with affixal structure, example, undesirable, unwanted ‘небажані елементи’ (about people), finals ‘випускні іспити’, supersonics ‘надзвукові літаки’, or
lexical shortenings, for example, pre-fab
from pre-fabricated house ‘збірний
(тобто такий, що збирається) будинок’ (combination of ellipsis,
substantivization and apocope), pop
from 1) popular music ‘популярна
(масова) музика’ or 2) popular
culture ‘популярна (масова) культура’ [Barber 2000]; 5) differentiation of
constructions with adverb there:
constructions with epenthetic there
report an information, and construction without there intended to provide physical perception by interlocutor or
reader a specific object from reality, cf.: As I recall, across the street there`s
grocery ‘Наскільки я пам’ятаю, через дорогу є продовольча крамниця’ (report
the information) and As you can see,
across the street is a grocery ‘Як бачите, через дорогу – продовольча
крамниця’ (focusing attention on the companion an object of reality – physical
perception). This explains the lack of construction of the second type (without
there) in stage directions [Вейхман
1990]: Between this door and the stem
gallery are bookshelves ‘Між цими дверима і галереєю з колонами книжкові
полиці’. In addition, in the grammars ([Radford 1997; Sag, Wason 2000] and
others) does not mention the occurrences of compound there`s in constructions there`s
a dear / there`s a (dear) love ‘будь ласка / будьте ласкаві / будьте такі
люб’язні’, there`s a ‘будь ласка /
будь(-те)…’, eg.: Oh, please, Ann, put on a coat, there`s a love ‘О, будь ласка, Енн, вдягни пальто, будь така ласкава!’; Whatever you were doing, stop it, there's
a dear ‘Що б Ви не робили,
облиште це, будьте такі добрі!’; There's a good girl.
Don't cry ‘Ну, будь розумницею. Не плач’; 6) emergence of
pseudo-subordinate independent sentences with unsemantic conjunction if / modal verb will or both components або обома компонентами simultaneously in
the wishes: Will you come this way,
please? ‘Чи не могли б Ви
пройти сюди, будь ласка?’; Mr. Marlowe? If
you will come this way, please ‘Містере Марлоу, сюди, будь ласка!’. In
addition, these sentences can predict a cue-response, eg.: "I’ll speak to her and tell her to lay off." – "If you
would" ‘«Я поговорю з нею і скажу, що її звільнено». – «Будь ласка /
Будьте такі ласкаві»’; 7) condensation of
phrases is typical for attributive word combination, ie replacement of
prepositional constructions on non-prepositional ones (nominative binomial (NB)),
formed by model N + N, where the number of components can vary from 2 to 7 or
more) that have different morphological features, in particular a prepositive
definition, expressed by: ·
a noun in the singular in the common case: game laws – 1) ‘правила гри’ (direct
value), 2) ‘правила полювання’ (НБ); a
return train ticket ‘квиток туди й назад’; the United States nuclear defense umbrella ‘ядерний захист
Сполучених Штатів Америки’; Scotland Yard
fraud squad officers ‘офіцери загону Скотленд-Ярду для боротьби з
шахрайством’ [Putilina 2012a: 21]; ·
a noun in the plural in the common case, which
includes the names of: o
institutions and organizations: complaints office ‘бюро
скарг’; o
laws and regulations: Governments’s yourth opportunities
programme ‘урядова програма працевлаштування молоді’; o
posts: antiquities dealer ‘антикварний дилер /
продавець антикваріату’; o
books, magazines, etc.: appointments book ‘книга
реєстрації прийому відвідувачів’; o
relevant to English-language countries phenomena that
still may not have a clear official name: wages and earnings figures ‘цифри (рівень) заробітної платні’; the aids
package ‘пакет допомоги’; Recipes Department ‘рецептурний відділ’
[Sproat 1985]; ·
a noun in the possessive case despite the fact the
noun (under the rules of normative grammar) does not form a possessive case
(though if the noun in such construction is the proper name, then there are two
options of the use – in the possessive and in the common cases, and in
Ukrainian translation form of the possessive case in such cases is absent, eg.:
Ottawa’s political elite ‘політична еліта
Оттави’ і Ottawa airport
‘аеропорт Оттави’), including names: o
cars, airplane and other vehicles: the car’s
front seat ‘переднє сидіння машини’; the
aircraft’s engines ‘двигуни
літака’; o
institutions: the
club’s reading-hall ‘читальний
зал клубу’; the hospital’s board-room
‘кімната для персоналу в лікарні’; o
buildings and facilities: the room’s deep silence
‘повна тиша в кімнаті’; the building’s lights ‘вогні будівлі’; o
household items: the
phone’s mouthpiece ‘телефонна
слухалка’; the desk lamp’s glow ‘блимання настільної лампи’; o
action: the war’s inevitability ‘неможливість
уникнення війни’; the journey’s shortness ‘нетривалість
подорожі’ [Putilina 2012a: 22]. It should be noted
that the changes that affect the syntactic level of English (in comparison with
Ukrainian), are common to all variants of English, but the main producers of
these processes are still AmE and BE, at that their number is constantly
growing, and areas of functioning are mainly broadcast media, advertising,
scientific and technical literature, political speeches and colloquial speech. On the whole, new
processes and phenomena in a large number fixed by linguists from the second
half of the 20th century, prompted researchers to expand the list of
the factors that influence the development and progress of language, especially
vocabulary that on the principle of chain reaction provokes changes at other
levels of language system [Stockwell, Minkova 2001]. One of the
determining factors was considered social changes in society that realies
certain language such as English or Ukrainian. In this context, Modern
Anglicists distinguish 5 main tasks: 1) determination of ways
of distinguishing new lexical items and new meanings of existing units; 2) an analysis of
factors of their occurrence in relation to the pragmatic needs of society; 3) study of models of
their creation and restrictions on their use; 4) development of
principles of attitude to new units (their perception / rejection of society)
in different social, professional, age groups, etc.; 5) lexicographic
treatment with the definition of pragmatic restrictions on their use in
different situations of communication including social differentiation of
language [Putilina 2012a: 22]. All this fits
within the scope of functional approach to the study of innovations in English
(in comparison with Ukrainian), i.e. the emergence of a new unit is due to
pragmatic needs of a particular social group. Depending on the role
relationships between participants of communication all situational types of
communication are divided into symmetric, which have the same social status of
communicants, one gender, one age, the same level of education, etc., and
asymmetrical, which are characterized by different social status of
communicants, different gender, different age, and under. In addition, the
focus is primarily on unofficial (relaxed) communication. Generally, the
Modern English-language society shows an increasing tendency towards social
differentiation, and best proof of it is the appearance of a large
number of words to denote different walks of life, for example: belonger ‘представник середнього класу’
(well-off middle class), ‘прихильник
консервативних поглядів, зацікавлений у матеріальному комфорті й стабільності,
позбавлений авантюризму’ (social type
that includes different age categories); yuppie (young urban
professional person) ‘молодий заможний мешканець міста, який прагне зробити
кар’єру, досягти матеріального успіху й при цьому веде активне світське життя,
має високооплачувану роботу й надзвичайно вимогливий до своєї зовнішності
(дотримується ділового стилю), яку сприймає як візитівку’ (this type includes
the following subtypes as buppie (black yuppie) ‘представник цієї групи,
який є афроамериканцем за походженням’, muppie
(middle-aged urban professional person)
‘представник цього типу, який досяг середнього віку’, ruppie (Republican urban professional person)
‘яппі, котрий підтримує республіканців’, etc.); survivers – букв. ‘ті, що виживають’ – representatives of the
lowest social stratum, which includes nilky
(no income, lots of kids) ‘безробітні
з великою родиною’; sustainers – in
one sense, an intermediate type that is neither quite poor nor wealthy, emulators – those who want to succeed in
life and try to emulate achievers –
the successful, including DINKY (double income, no kids yet) ‘успішна
молода бездітна сімейна пара, у якій обидва члени подружжя працюють’, pippy (a person inheriting parents` property) ‘людина середнього віку’, Whanny (we have a nanny) ‘людина, яка наймає няню (може собі це
дозволити)’ (букв. ‘У нас є няня’),
etc., – all these segments of society are combined with concept VAL (value
and lifestyles) ‘цінності й спосіб життя’. However, social
stratification of the vocabulary is also found in the presence of the words the
usage of which is limited within a certain class, including: · broadcasting the middle class is characterized
by units starting morpheme Mc (by analogy
to McDonalds), fast, convenience, junk, that is a measure of the meaning of
"inexpensive, convenient, standard", eg.: McLife ‘звичайне / повсякденне життя’, McNews ‘звичайні (нецікаві) новини’, fast food ‘швидка (неякісна) їжа або заклад, де її пропонують’, junk food ‘їжа-сміття / нездорова їжа /
сурогати, а також люди, які вживають такі продукти і страви’, convenience-food ‘концентрати /
консервовані продукти, що не потребують тривалого приготування / страви, які
готують у кафе’, etc. [Елисеева 2003]; · for speech of the working class are inherent
lexemes cheers ‘до побачення’, dozen ‘сварка з родичами’, to badmouth ‘лаятися’, etc.; · in broadcasting of the unemployed were concepts
workfare ‘ті, хто отримує виплати по
безробіттю за умови, що вони беруть участь у роботах, що не оплачуються (у
громадських роботах), зокрема прибирання вулиць і под.’, welfare mother ‘мати-одиначка, яка не працює і живе на виплати по
безробіттю’, etc. With professional
differentiation of the language is associated the emergence of an entire group
of words with morpheme speak denoting
"the language of a certain professional group", for example: cablespeak ‘жаргон працівників
телебачення’, educationspeak ‘жаргон
працівників системи освіти’, sportspeak
‘жаргон спортсменів’ [Labov 2010], and so. In addition,
restrictions on the use of neologisms may be related to a belonging of native
speaker to certain ethnic society – the use of racial profiling – and
it usually imposes on bargains lexeme a negative marking, eg.: in broadcasting
of Indians – apple ‘індіанець, який
співпрацює з федеральним урядом’; in the speech of African Americans – whitie, paddy, blue-eyed devil, Mr Charley
‘біла людина’; in the speech of white people can appear such lexemes to
indicate the African Americans as af,
houtie, terr or banana ‘азіат’ on
people from Asia. The fact that the
linguistic changes, that have sociolinguistic background, are systematic
evidenced by the appearance of specialized suffixes that represent
the condemnation by society the members of certain social groups or events,
including: -eer: profiteer
‘спекулянт’; -ster: wordster
‘віршомаз’; -nik: noodnik ‘зануда’; and semisuffixes (splinters)
-hop: to jobhop ‘часто змінювати
місце роботи’ and -gate: Clintongate
‘скандал довкола стосунків президента Клінтона і Моніки Левінські’ [Putilina
2012a: 24]. Overall, today can
be characterized by a number of functional-semantic groups of
vocabulary that emerged as a result of social processes and phenomena and
firmly entrenched in the minds of the English language speakers, including: · Euronotions (due to the emergence of the European
Union): MEP (Member of the European
Parliament) ‘член Європейського Парламенту’; Euro-sceptic (a person who is skeptical about the value of closer
connection among European countries) ‘мешканець Великої Британії, який
скептично ставиться до об’єднання європейських країн у Євросоюз’; · dress code (as a pledge of a prestigious job, and
hence a higher status in society): dress-down-Friday
‘стиль одягу, що допускається для появи на роботі по п’ятницях’; power dresser ‘людина, яка дотримується
певного стилю одягу для роботи’; · attitude to work: fast-tracker
‘людина, яка швидко просувається службовою драбиною, жертвуючи багатьма речами
або усім у своєму особистому житті’; downshifter
(a person who makes a change of career or
lifestyle to a mode less pressured and demanding) ‘людина, яка між кар’єрою
і особистим життям (чи родиною) обирає останнє’; · computer technology: bogusware ‘програма, написана для руйнування інших програм’; toolsmith ‘фахівець з коригування
програм’; · exploration of Space: link-up ‘стиковка космічних кораблів’; chiken soup not in the meaning ‘суп з курчати’, but as ‘розчин
амінокислот, вітамінів, використовуваний в експериментах з метою виявлення
метаболічної діяльності на Марсі’; · medicine: Americanophobia
‘страх перед усім американським’, vanity
surgery ‘пластична хірургія’ [Müller 2008]; · ecology and its deterioration: clean-up groups ‘групи із зачистки ділянок зараженої місцевості’, environmentalist ‘борець за охорону
довкілля’; · phenomena of social life that have changed under the
influence of social movements, processes and groups – the tendency to
undesignation of sex (cf. Ukrainian counterpart, where gender is formally
presented, unlike the English version): stewardess
→ flight
attendant ‘стюардеса → бортпровідник / бортпровідниця’; fireman → fire fighter ‘пожежник → букв. борець з вогнем, тобто пожежник’.
It also includes a large group of lexemes (compound nouns) with the second
component person in the value ‘особа,
людина’, for example: freshperson
‘новачок’; policeperson ‘полісмен,
поліцейський’; · ethical standards: open
marriage ‘шлюб, у якому кожен з подружжя має повну свободу (соціальну,
етичну тощо)’, contract marriage
‘шлюб, укладений на певний період’; · discrimination on grounds of: o
appearance: fattism
‘дискримінація товстих’; o
age groups: youthism
‘дискримінація молодих при прийомі на роботу’, etc.; · politics: velvet
revolution ‘безкровна революція’ (cf. concept of the Velvet Revolution,
which is a copy (loan translation) of the English construction), START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) ‘перемовини щодо скорочення стратегічного
озброєння’. To this group belong euphemisms – words that gained
prominence in the period of social development related to activities of
individual politicians or under the influence of certain political events, eg.:
Watergatism ‘політичні скандали’
(from the name of the hotel Watergate,
which is connected with a scandal that ended with the resignation of Richard
Nixon, the President of the United States); megadebtor
‘країна з великим зовнішнім боргом’ (the lexeme came during a discussion about the
country's debt at the UN (the United Nations)) [Lass 1994]; · art: ABC art
‘мистецтво спрощення і розкладання кольору і форми на елементарні складники’, action painting ‘розбризкування фарби
для створення картини’; · theater: black
theatre ‘негритянський театр’, revolve
‘сцена, що обертається’; · movie and television: HDTV (high definition TV) ‘телевізор з високою роздільністю
зображення’, chat show ‘інтерв’ю зі
знаменитістю (переважно в прямому ефірі)’ (as in the U.S. for years went Oprah
Winfrey`s Show) [Putilina 2012a: 25]; · music: MC (Master of Ceremony) ‘особливо видатний
репер’; sampling ‘використовування в
електронній музиці фрагментів раніше створеної музики у новому творі’; · changes in education: sink schools (schools situated in deprived areas in inner city)
‘школи з дуже низьким рівнем викладання в гетто / бідних районах, де мешкають
переважно емігранти’; licensed teachers
‘учителі, які не мають вищої освіти’ (this category was due to lack of
teachers); · life (mainly food): longlife milk ‘молоко тривалого зберігання’, clingfilm ‘плівка для упаковки продуктів, які швидко псуються’; · sport: slimnastics
‘гімнастика для зменшення ваги’, a
free-fall ‘стрибок з парашутом у поєднанні з акторбатикою’, etc. It is noteworthy
that it is very difficult to make a detailed analysis of the new items that
appear in English (in comparison with Ukrainian) because responsiveness of
native speakers to changes in social life is high [Algeo, Pyles 2009;
Millward, Hayes 2011], and many new lexemes for a long time can
be exclusively is in the spoken area, such as within the slang, so only then
they can go to the media through speech of which such units usually fall in the
range of attention of linguists. Definitely we can only assert that the
absolute champion in this process today remains AmE, while other variants of
English gradually master new units providing that there is common social
situation in the sense that influenced the rise of new lexemes. Thus, complex
analysis of Present-day English language (in comparison with Ukrainian) is
impossible without taking into account not only consistent intralinguistic but
extralinguistic factors that influence of the speakers, and therefore –
also on the language itself, thus and so a social factor is extremely important
in the linguistic sense in English-language society and it demonstrates the
national language specifics. The whole
development of Present-day English language (without regard to a particular
variant of it) at this stage shows the active cooperation of all levels of
language (as well as it does in Present-day Ukrainian language), because the
appearance of new lexical items consistently provokes the changes, at
that systematic, on the grammatical level, often having sociolinguistic
motivation, but the changes apply to all instances of verbal and semantic
manifestations of a linguistic unit – from pronunciation to stylistic
constraints and graphic design.
Perspective of this study is to analyze
the processes that deepen the internal stratification of Present-day 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 modern
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 Вейхман 1990: Вейхман, Г.А. Новое в английской
грамматике [Текст] / Г. А. Вейхман. – М. : Высшая школа, 1990. – 128
с. 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 Елисеева 2003: Елисеева, В.В. Лексикология английского
языка [Текст] / В. В. Елисеева. – СПб. :
Изд-во СПбГУ, 2003. – 80 с. – ISBN:
5-8465-0135-4 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. Algeo, Pyles 2009: Algeo, J., Pyles,
Th.
The
Origins and Development of the English Language [Text] / J. Algeo, Th. Pyles. – Boston : Cengage Learning, 2009.
– 347 pp. – ISBN-13: 978-1-4282-3145-0 Barber 2000: Barber, Ch., Barber, Ch.L. The
English Language : A Historical
Introduction [Text] / Ch. Barber, Ch. L. Barber. – Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 2000. – 299 pp. – ISBN 0-521-785-70-7
(paperback) Jespersen 1922: Jespersen, О. Language : Its
Nature and Development [Hardcover]
[Text]
/ О. Jespersen. –
New York : H. Holt Publishing, 1922. – Access mode : URL : http://www.archive.org/stream/languageitsnatur00jespuoft/languageitsnatur00jespuoft_djvu.txt. – Title from the
screen. Kastovsky 1991: Kastovsky, D. Historical
English Syntax [Text] / D. Kastovsky. – Berlin ; New York : Walter de
Gruyter, 1991. – 510 pp. – ISBN 3-11-012431-9 Labov 2010: Labov,
W. Principles of Linguistic Change, Cognitive and Cultural
Factors [Text] / W. Labov. – Chichester : John Wiley & Sons,
2010. – 424 pp. – ISBN 978-1-4051-1215-4 (hardback) Lass 1994: Lass, R. Old English : A Historical
Linguistic Companion [Text] / R. Lass. – Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 1994. – 300 pp. – ISBN 0 521 43087 hardback Millward, Hayes 2011: Millward, C.M.,
Hayes, M. A
Biography of the English Language [Text] / C. M. Millward, M. Hayes.
– Boston : Cengage Learning, 2011. – 478 pp. –
ISBN-13: 978-0-495-90641-4 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? [Text] / О. Putilina
// Лінгвістичні студії : Зб. наук. праць. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2012. –
Випуск 25. – С. 89-94. Putilina 2012a:
Putilina, O. Innovations in Present-day
Ukrainian and English Languages (Morphology. Syntax. Sociolinguistics). Book 2
[Text] / Oksana Putilina : Educational Supply for Students of Higher
Educational Institutions / Ed. by Anatoliy Zahnitko. – Donetsk : Donetsk
National University, 2012. – 306 pp. Putilina 2013: Putilina, Oksana. Derivation in Modern English in
comparison with Ukrainian : Путіліна Оксана. Деривація в сучасній англійській мові
у зіставленні з українською [Текст] / Оксана Путіліна : Навчальний посібник для
студентів вищих навчальних закладів / За ред. А.П.
Загнітка. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2013. – 100 с. Radford
1997: Radford, A. Syntactic theory and the structure of English :
a minimalist approach [Text] / A. Radford. – Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press, 1997. – 558 pp. Sag,
Wason 2000: Sag, J., Wason, T. Syntactic Theory : A Formal Introduction [Text]
/ J. Sag, T. Wason. – Stanford : CSLI, 2000. – 211 pр. Shay 2008: Shay, S.
The History of English : A Linguistic Introduction [Text] / S. Shay. – San
Francisco, CA / Washington, DC : Wardja Press, 2008. – 232 pp. – ISBN
978-0-6151-6817-3 Sproat
1985: Sproat, R. Welsh Syntax and VSO Structure [Text] / R. Sproat //
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. – Vol. 3. – 1985. – Pp. 173-216. Stockwell, Minkova
2001: Stockwell, R.P., Minkova, D. English words : history and structure
[Text] / R. P. Stockwell, D. Minkova. – Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 2001. – 208 pp. – ISBN 0 521 79362 9
(paperback)
Стаття присвячена характеристиці етапів і причин формування граматичних,
зокрема синтаксичних, змін як підґрунтя інноваційних процесів у сучасній
англійській мові (у зіставленні з українською), встановленню природи і
першооснови змін у граматичному складі (власне-синтаксичного характеру), а
також на соціолінгвістичному і лексико-семантичному рівні англійської мови на
етапі її сучасного становлення (порівняно з українською), розмежуванню форм
функціонування англійської мови в британському та американському варіантах (у
зіставленні з українською), кваліфікуванню інтралінгвістичних / екстралінгвістичних причин
синтаксичних і соціолінгвістичних змін інноваційного типу в обох зіставлюваних
мовах. Ключові слова: конкурування, конденсація фрази, розповідне речення,
еліпсис, функційно-семантична група, глобальна інтеграція, граматичні зміни,
інноваційний процес, професійна диференціація, псевдопідрядне незалежне
речення, расова ознака, напівсуфікс (сплінтер), соціальна диференціація
словника, соціолінгвістичний рівень, синтаксичний рівень, варіант, порядок
слів.
Available 22 July 2013. |