Common and Different Methods of Compounding in the Present-Day English Language in Comparison with Ukrainian One

Abstract.

COMMON AND DIFFERENT METHODS OF COMPOUNDING IN THE PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN COMPARISON WITH UKRAINIAN ONE

Olga Usenko

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

Available 15 August 2012.

Abstract

Relevance

Compounding in language always make some difficulties in translating compound words to the target language[Bauer 1983; Carstairs-McCarthy 2002; Marchand 1960; Plag 2003]. The actuality of our research is caused by being of English and Ukrainian languages in the condition of active development, especially in the lexical sphere, that turnes to broadening and modification of their lexical structure. But also grammatical changes taking place in Modern English, affect not only the morphological level but also syntactic – from phrases to the text [Putilina 2012: 19]. The general list is rather long and it continues to grow, so it seems appropriate to name the most important signs typical of modern English syntax (in comparison with Ukrainian) and represented in most variants of English.

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to distinguish the main methods of compounding in both English and Ukrainian languages and to compare them.

Tasks

The task is to discover the most frequent methods of creating lexical innovations in the English language and identical rendering them into the Ukrainian language.

Conclusion

Observing the process of word-formation in Modern English, in comparison with Ukrainian language, we should mainly speak about the affixational way of creating new words, the telescopy, the conversion, the multicomponent nominations, analogy and acronomy. In modern Ukrainian such formations are given with the help of transcription, transliteration, descriptive translation and calking.

Perspective

The perspective of this article forms the absence of the complex investigations of the modern neologizational processes in both compared languages.

Research highlights

►The main features of word-formation models in the Present-day English language in comparison with Ukrainian one are distinguished. ►Every method of compounding is fully analyzed and the examples for every paragraph are assorted from present-day English-speaking media. ►Methods of compounding in Present-day English and Ukrainian are compared and chosen the main ones for every language.

Keywords: compounding, telescopy, affixation, conversion, analogy, acronomy, transliteration, calking.

References

Karoshhuk, P. M. (1997). Slovoobrazovanie anglijskogo jazyka. Moskva.

Levyts'kyy, A. E. & Shelud'ko, A. V. (2003). Kontrastyvno-perekladats'ki osnovy analizu skladnykh sliv suchasnoho typu. Kyyiv: Naukova dumka.

Levickij, A. Je. & Slavova, L. L. (2007). Sravnitel'naja tipologija russkogo i anglijskogo jazykov. Kiev: "Osvita Ukrayiny".

Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2002). An Introduction to English Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Marchand, H. (1960). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Putilina, O. (2011). Innovations in Present-day Ukrainian and English Languages. Phonetics. Lexicology. Phraseology. Donets'k: DonNU.

Putilina, O. (2012). Innovations in Present-day Ukrainian and English Languages (Morphology. Syntax. Sociolinguistics). Book 2. Donetsk: Donetsk National University.

Sources and Abbreviations

1) The Forbes

2) The New York Times

3) The Washington Tribune

4) The Washington Post

Correspondence: deep00095@gmail.com

Vitae

Olga O. Usenko is Graduate Student at Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics in Donetsk National University. Her research area includes word-formation in Present-day English language in comparison with Ukrainian one.

Article.

Olga Usenko

УДК 81-116.3

COMMON AND DIFFERENT METHODS OF COMPOUNDING

IN THE PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN COMPARISON WITH UKRAINIAN ONE

У статті виділені головні риси основних словотвірних моделей у сучасній англійській мові в зіставленні з українською. Кожен із методів словотвору детально проаналізований, а також до кожного з них поданий ілюстративний матеріал, дібраний із сучасних англійськомовних ЗМІ. Зроблені висновки про схожість і відмінність між способами словотвору в сучасних англійській та українській мовах та виділені головні способи словотвору для кожної з вищезазначених мов.

Ключові слова: словотвір, телескопія, афіксація, конверсія, аналогія, акрономія, транслітерація, калькування.

Compounding in language always make some difficulties in translating compound words to the target language[Bauer 1983; Carstairs-McCarthy 2002; Marchand 1960; Plag 2003]. The actuality of our research is caused by being of English and Ukrainian languages in the condition of active development, especially in the lexical sphere, that turnes to broadening and modification of their lexical structure. But also grammatical changes taking place in Modern English, affect not only the morphological level but also syntactic – from phrases to the text [Putilina 2012: 19]. The general list is rather long and it continues to grow, so it seems appropriate to name the most important signs typical of modern English syntax (in comparison with Ukrainian) and represented in most variants of English.

The purpose of this research is to distinguish the main methods of compounding in both English and Ukrainian languages and to compare them.

The philological education, the knowledge of associative connections of terminological morphemes and affixational peculiarities of terms can help an amateur translator with the process of translating terms-neologisms. Thus, our task is to discover the most frequent methods of creating lexical innovations in the English language and identical rendering them into the Ukrainian language.

The analysis of the Present-day English language has revealed such models of English word-formation:

1. Affixation. Affixational units, as a right, are formed following English traditions of compounding. Their morphological structure and the character of meaning’s motivation are getting complicated with conceptions of native speakers about the usual and the standard word. The prefixational neologisms have been creating especially high [Карощук 1977: 39]. The international prefix eco- joined the derivational connections the most actively. The word-formative meaning of an eco-element gives it wide opportunities for reflection of ecological condition and processes which are aimed for environmental defense and protection (eco-economy, ecoagriculture, eco-correctness, ecotage). Among the most userable prefixes we can distinguish such ones as myco-, hyper-, pre-, re-: myco-diesel – the diesel fuel, which is produced from mushrooms; precycling – buying products according with their fitness for alteration.

2. Telescopy. The materials of the neologisms’ dictionaries, the periodical press confirm scientists’ conclusion about the activization of telescopical word-formation that means creating a word from two another words. The telescopical method is a quiet modish way of word-formation in English. In a fact, it has been started to be used actively since XX century [Карощук 1977: 40]. The most productive models of a telescopy are such models as:

a) ab + cd > ab/cd (the superposition of a first word’s end to the beginning of a second word), example: fee + rebate > feebate: For years, environmental groups have backed feebates to encourage consumers to buy vehicles that burn less fuel – and, as a result, emit lower volumes of greenhouse gases (The New York Times);

b) ab + cd > ad (the connection of the initial element of a first word with the final element of a second word), e.g.: ecology + economics > ecolonomics: In 1993, he and his wife founded a nonprofit group called the Institute of Ecolonomics — a word Mr. Weaver coined from combining ecology and economics — to find solutions to environmental problems (The Forbes);

c) ab + cd > ab\cd (the superposition of a second word’s beginning to the end of a first word), for example: flotsam + metrics > flotsametrics: The use of floating trash, such as a huge consignment of training shoes washed off a cargo ship in 1990, to study ocean currents (The Washington Post).

3. Conversion. Conversion, as a method of word-formation with the help of derivation, considerably reduced its activity and yields to other ways of word-formation. The main model here is still N – V, with the help of which the great quantity of new terms is created [Карощук 1977: 43], e.g.: to eco-drive, to greenwash. The general scheme of semantical changings under the creating verbs from nouns (inanimates) could be represented as: damping down of the “object” seme and adding “to act due to object” seme, that has become the heart of a new meaning. For example: to greenscam – to give out a product for that, which is not harmful for the environment. The converted innovations appear in consequence of combined actions of word-formational and semantical derivation. The reduction of binary attributive word-combination is typical, in which the second word removes as usual and its meaning conveys to the adjective or noun (the first, determinative word), example: bad commodities = bads. It should also be note that 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’) [Putilina 2011: 18].

4. Multi-component combinations. One more group consists of multi-component lexical units “compounds of syntactical type” [Карощук 1977: 51]. In Modern English the big part of such units appears on the basis of the phrasal attributes, and they get narrow as adjectives (dark-sky preserve – a park, in which there are no artificial illumination, for people could admire the night sky in a full measure), e.g.: “The ‘dark-sky preserve’ will be almost free of light pollution even though the area is within easy reach of Southern Ontario’s most highly developed areas” (Martin Mittelstaedt, “Ontario’s ‘dark-sky’ park a world first,” The Globe and Mail).

In many countries the government has started to introduce the programme, the main principle of which is tax collection from farms and companies. The dimensions of tax are strait proportional to the quantity of a dash, which is produced by this farms and companies – pay-as-you-throw: Her solution: some form of pay-as-you-throw tax that charges householders according to the amount dumped (The Washington Tribune).

5. Analogy. A great role in the creating new lexical units plays the analogy, which means that a unit creates not so as for certain model, but for the example of a certain word (words). In the process of word-formation with the help of analogy it happens a peculiar modeling, the reflection of a model of an example, its morphological structure. The model of a word-for-example is just filled with a new lexical material with the help of changing of a component: locavore – a person, who eat just a food, that is grown or produced in this region (compare well-known words which characterise an animal’s world from the point of the nutrition sources – carnivore, herbivore), for example: You've heard of herbivores and carnivores. Now meet locavores. Locavores are dedicated to eating food grown near home. Some set a limit of 100 miles, some a modest 50. This eating program makes it all but impossible to drink coffee or eat chocolate chip cookies (The New York Times); or cleantech – a sinonym to the words clean technology and environmental technology, which means ecologically harmless technologies (like a greentech). Also in a certain sense, an effect of analogy can be seen in the extension of the vocabulary is not only due to borrowings (including tracing – the formation of new words in another language models by translating morphemes, eg., chainsmoking, which is a transcript / tracing from the German kettel-rauchen), but also by so-called internal resources of the language system, ie, word building processes and redefining the existing values ​​(secondary designation) [Putilina 2011: 12].

6. Abbreviation (acronomy). During the process of creating neologisms in the sphere of informational technologies, the great meaning have the shortenings. As an example of neologisms we can offer such acronyms: SEA street (street edge alternatives) – a road, along which there is a swampy lowland, reveted with stones and full of soil and plants which helpes to decrease flowing and reaching the rainwater to the nearest basins.

The quantity of abbreviations and acronyms of compound terms is constantly increasing. The typical feature of the abbreviation (mainly the sound abbreviation, i.e. acronomy) nowadays could be called the homonymie (homographie or homophonie of a word of the acronomical units), example: bat/BAT – Best Available Technology. We can also observe the “grammatical homonymie”: acts/ACTS – Asbestos Contractor Tracking System. The associations that appear under comparison of meanings of the homonymical word and an acronym help us to imagine a certain image. In spite of their abbreviational character, some shortenings make the basis of a further word-formation, i.e. they are lexicalizing, e.g.: CFC – CFC-trade, CFC-gases, CFC-free [Карощук 1977: 65].

On the Ukrainian language they could be transtaled by different ways, exactly:

1. Transcribing (transliteration). These ways of translation get their name because of under their using, the act of translation changes to the act of borrowing of a sound (under the transcription) or a graphical (under the transliteration) word form together with the meaning, from the sourse language to the target language. Practically, the borrowing is accomplished here for the translation, as a necessary clause of its accomplishment. The borrowed word becomes a fact of a target language, and appears in a quality of an identical word that belongs to another language, e.g.: The New York Times – Нью-Йорк Таймс, YouTube – ЮТуб / ЮТьюб.

2. Calking. The calking supposes the existance of the double-sided accordances among languages between the elementary lexical units, which are used in a quality of a “building material” for recreation the inner form of the word, which is translated. Calking, as a method of creating the equivalent, is similar to the word for word translation – the equivalent of a whole word creates with the help of the simple stowage of the equivalents of its main parts, for example: more true ‘більш справедливий’ instead truer ‘справедливіший’, most busy ‘більш зайнятий’ instead busiest ‘зайнятіший’ (cf. in the latter case the Ukrainian language on the contrary has a more typical analytical form): This is more short way to the station ‘Це найбільш короткий шлях до станції’ [Putilina 2012: 12].

3. Descriptive translation. The descriptive equivalents are fundamentally differ from calks: in the descriptive ways of the neologisms’ transmission by the translation invariant, the meaning of unit of another language is irrespectively differ from the character of its connections with the outward words structure, in that time when during the calking by the invariant of translation is the unit of a source language (not a sound or a graphical, as during the transcription or transliteration, but a lexical or a lexical-morphological one), the meaningful part stays “behind the brackets” [Левицький, Шелудько 2003: 98], e.g.: Whanny (we have a nanny) ‘людина, яка наймає няню (може собі це дозволити)’ (букв. ‘У нас є няня’) [Putilina 2012: 23].

Now then, observing the process of word-formation in Modern English, in comparison with Ukrainian language, we should mainly speak about the affixational way of creating new words, the telescopy, the conversion, the multicomponent nominations, analogy and acronomy. In modern Ukrainian such formations are given with the help of transcription, transliteration, descriptive translation and calking.

The perspective of this article forms the absence of the complex investigations of the modern neologizational processes in both compared languages.

References.

References

Карощук 1977: Карощук, П.М. Словообразование английского языка [Текст] / П. М. Карощук. – М., 1977. – 315 с.

Левицький, Шелудько 2003: Левицький, А.Е., Шелудько, А.В. Контрастивно-перекладацькі основи аналізу складних слів сучасного типу [Текст] / А. Е. Левицький, А. В. Шелудько. – К.: Наукова думка, 2003. – 211 с.

Левицкий, Славова 2007: Левицкий, А.Э., Славова, Л.Л. Сравнительная типология русского и английского языков [Текст] / А. Э. Левицький, Л. Л. Славова. – К.: «Освіта України», 2007. – 271 с.

Bauer 1983: Bauer, Laurie. English Word-formation [Text] / L. Bauer. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983. – 307 pp.

Carstairs-McCarthy 2002: Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. An Introduction to English Morphology [Text] / A. Carstairs-McCarthy. – Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2002. – 151 pp.

Marchand 1960: Marchand, Hans. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation [Text] / H. Marchand. – Wiesbaden : Otto Harrassowitz, 1960. – 350 pp.

Plag 2003: Plag, Ingo. Word-formation in English [Text] / I. Plag. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2003. – 240 pp.

Putilina 2011: Putilina, O. Innovations in Present-day Ukrainian and English Languages. Phonetics. Lexicology. Phraseology : Путіліна, О.Л. Інновації в сучасних українській та англійській мовах (Фонетика. Лексикологія. Фразеологія). Навчальний посібник для студентів вищих навчальних закладів / За ред. А. П. Загнітка [Text] / Oksana Putilina. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2011. – 277 с.

Putilina 2012: Putilina, Oksana. 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.

Sources

1) The Forbes

2) The New York Times

3) The Washington Tribune

4) The Washington Post

В статье выделены главные черты словообразовательных моделей в современном английском языке в сопоставлении с украинским. Каждый из методов словообразования детально проанализирован, а также для каждого из них подан иллюстративный материал из современных англоязычных СМИ. Сделаны выводы об общих и различных способах словообразования в современных английском и украинском языках и выделены главенствующие способы для каждого из упомянутых языков.

Ключевые слова: словообразование, телескопия, аффиксация, конверсия, аналогия, акрономия, транслитерация, метод словесной кальки.

In the article the main features of word-formation models in the Present-day English language in comparison with Ukrainian one are distinguished. Every method of compounding is fully analyzed and the examples for every paragraph are assorted from present-day English-speaking media. In the conclusions methods of compounding in Present-day English and Ukrainian are compared and chosen the main ones for every language.

Keywords: compounding, telescopy, affixation, conversion, analogy, acronomy, transliteration, calking.

Надійшла до редакції 15 серпня 2012 року.