МІНІСТЕРСТВО ОСВІТИ І НАУКИ УКРАЇНИ
НАЦІОНАЛЬНИЙ ТЕХНІЧНИЙ УНІВЕРСИТЕТ УКРАЇНИ
КИЇВСЬКИЙ ПОЛІТЕХНІЧНИЙ ІНСТИТУТ
Кафедра теорії, практики та перекладу англійської мови
з порівняльної лексикології англійської та української мов
„Methods of Lexicological Analysis”
студентка ІІІ курсу ФЛ
І. Methods of Lexicological Analysis
І.1. Contrastive Analysis
І.2. Statistical Methods of Analysis
І.3. Immediate Constituents Analysis
І.4. Distributional Analysis and Co-occurrence
І.5. Transformational Analysis
І.6. Componential Analysis
І.7. Method of Semantic Differential
І.8. Contextual Analysis
Growing interest in methods of study is one of the most symptomatic
features of present-day linguistics.
The research methods used in lexicology have always been closely
connected with the general trends in linguistics. The principles of
comparative linguistics have played an important role in the development
of a scientific approach to historical word study. They have brought an
enormous increase in ordered and classified information about the
English vocabulary in their proper perspective. The methods applied
consisted in observation of speech, mostly written, collection and
classification of data, hypotheses, and systematic statements.
Particular stress was put on the refinement of methods for collecting
and classifying facts. The study of vocabulary became scientific.
19th century scientific language study having recognized variety and
change in language, comparative philology insisted on regarding the
descriptive statements as subordinate, not worth making for their own
sake. Its aim was to reconstruct the fundamental forms and meanings
which have not come down to us. With the use of sets of phonetic
correspondence philologists explored and proved genetic relationships
between words in different languages. They rejected prescriptive trends
characteristic of the previous stage. It was realized that the only
basis for correctness is the usage of the native speakers of each
language. They destroyed the myth of a Golden Age when all the words had
their primary “correct” meaning and when the language was in a state of
perfection from which it has deteriorated. It became clear from
intensive work on the great historical dictionaries that multiple
meaning for words is normal, not an “exception”. Comparative studies
showed that, save for specific technical terms, there are no two words
in two languages that cover precisely the same area.
The process of scientific investigation may be subdivided into several
Due to these processes the certain classification of the methods of
lexicological analysis has appeared.
Nowadays scientists distinguish:
· Contrastive analysis
· Statistical methods of analysis
· Immediate Constituents analysis
· Distributional analysis and co-occurrence
· Transformational analysis
· Componential analysis
· Method of semantic differential
· Contextual analysis
The detailed description of these methods will be shown further.
I. METHODS OF LEXICOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
I.1. Contrastive Analysis
In fact contrastive analysis grew as the result of the practical demands
of language teaching methodology where it was empirically shown that the
errors which are made recurrently by foreign language students can be
often traced back to the differences in structure between the target
language and the language of the learner. This naturally implies the
necessity of a detailed comparison of the structure of a native and a
target language which has been named contrastive analysis.
It should be borne in mind that though objective reality exists outside
human beings and irrespective of the language they speak every language
classifies reality in its own way by means of vocabulary units. In
English, the word foot is used to denote the extremity of the leg. In
Ukrainian there is no exact equivalent for foot. The word denotes the
whole leg including the foot.
Classification of the real world around us provided by the vocabulary
units of our mother tongue is learned and assimilated together with our
first language. Because we are used to the way in which our own language
structures experience we are often inclined to think of this as the only
natural way of handling things whereas in fact it is highly-arbitary.
One example is provided by the words watch and clock. It would seem
natural for Ukrainian speakers to have a single word to refer to all
devices that tell us what time it is; yet in English they are divided
into two semantic classes depending on whether or not they are
customarily portable. We also find it natural that kinship terms should
reflect the difference between male and female: brother or sister,
father or mother, uncle or aunt, yet in English we fail to make this
distinction in the case of cousin (the Ukrainian — двоюрідний брат,
Contrastive analysis also brings to light what can be labelled problem
pairs, the words that denote two entities in one language and correspond
to two different words in another language.
Compare, for example годинник in Ukrainian and clock, watch in English,
художник in Ukrainian and artist, painter in English.
Contrastive analysis on the level of the grammatical meaning reveals
that correlated words in different languages may differ in the
grammatical component of their meaning.
To take a simple instance Ukrainians are liable to say the news are
good, the money are on the table, her hair are black, as the words
новини, гроші, волосся have the grammatical meaning of plurality in the
Contrastive analysis brings to light the essence of what is usually
described as idiomatic English, idiomatic Ukrainian the peculiar way in
which every language combines and structures in lexical units various
concepts to denote extra-linguistic reality.
For example, a typical Ukrainian word-group used to describe the way
somebody performs an action, or the state in which a person finds
himself, has the structure that may be represented by the formula adverb
followed by a finite form of a verb (or a verb + an adverb), він кріпко
спить, він швидко/повільно/ засвоює. In English we can also use
structurally similar word-groups and say he smokes a lot, he learns
slowly (fast). The structure of idiomatic English word-groups however is
different. The formula of this word-group can be represented as an
adjective + deverbal noun, he is a heavy smoker, a poor learner, “The
Englishman is a slow starter but there is no stronger finisher”
(Galsworthy). Another English word-group used in similar cases has the
structure verb to be + adjective + the infinitive, (He) is quick to
realize, (He) is slow-to cool down,which is practically non-existent in
the Ukrainian language. Commonly used English words of the type (he is)
an early-riser, a music-lover, have no counterparts in the Ukrainian
language and as a rule correspond to phrases of the type (він) paнo
встає, (він) дуже любить музику.
Last but not least contrastive analysis deals with the meaning and use
of situational verbal units, words, word-groups, sentences which are
commonly used by native speakers in certain situations.
For instance when we answer a telephone call and hear somebody asking
for a person whose name we have never heard the usual answer for the
Ukrainian speaker would be Ви помилились (номером). The Englishman in
identical situation is likely to say Wrong number .
To sum up contrastive analysis cannot be overestimated as an
indispensable stage in preparation of teaching material, in selecting
lexical items to be extensively practiced and in predicting typical
errors. It is also of great value for an efficient teacher who knows
that to have a native like command of a foreign language, to be able to
speak what we call idiomatic English, words, word-groups and whole
sentences must be learned within the lexical, grammatical and
situational restrictions of the English language.
I.2. Statistical Methods of Analysis
An important and promising trend in modern linguistics which has been
making progress during the last few decades is the quantitative study of
language phenomena and the application of statistical methods in
The first requirement for a successful statistical study is the
representativeness of the objects counted for the problem in question,
its relevance from the linguistic point of view. Statistical approach
proved essential in the selection of vocabulary items of a foreign
language for teaching purposes.
It is common knowledge that very few people know more than 10% of the
words of their mother tongue. It follows that if we do not wish to waste
time on committing to memory vocabulary items which are never likely to
be useful to the learner, we have to select only lexical units that are
commonly used by native speakers.
It goes without saying that to be useful in teaching statistics should
deal with meanings as well as sound-forms as not all word-meanings are
Besides, the number of meanings exceeds by far the number of words. The
total number of different meanings recorded and illustrated in Oxford
English Dictionary for the first 500 words of the Thorndike Word List is
14,070, for the first thousand it is nearly 25,000. Naturally not all
the meanings should be included in the list of the first two thousand
most commonly used words. Statistical analysis of meaning frequencies
resulted in the compilation of A General Service List of English Words
with Semantic Frequencies. The semantic count is a count of the
frequency of the occurrence of the various senses of 2,000 most frequent
words as found in a study of five million running words. The semantic
count is based on the differentiation of the meanings in the OED and the
frequencies are expressed as percentage, so that the teacher and
textbook writer may find it easier to understand and use the list. An
example will make the procedure clear.
takes less room, not enough room to turn round (in)
make room for (figurative)
room for improvement – 12%come to my room, bedroom, sitting room;
drawing room, bathroom – 83%(plural = suite, lodgings)
my room in college
to let rooms – 2%
It can be easily observed from the semantic count above that the meaning
‘part of a house’ (sitting room, drawing room,) makes up 83% of all
occurrences of the word room and should be included in the list of
meanings to be learned by the beginners, whereas the meaning ’suite,
lodgings’ is not essential and makes up only 2% of all occurrences of
Кімната (окреме приміщення перев. для проживання в квартирі, будинку) –
Хата розм. – 17%
Покій, палата заст. (перев. розкішне, багате приміщення) – 3%
Світлиця, горниця розм. (перев. чисте, парадне приміщення) – 7%
Вітальня (приміщення, обладнане для приймання гостей) – 29%
Ванькир (бічне приміщення, відокремлене від великої кімнати, яке є
спальнею і дитячою кімнатою) –3%
One more specific feature must, however, be stressed here. All modern
methods aim at being impersonal and objective in the sense that they
must lead to generalizations verifiable by all competent persons. In
this effort to find verifiable relationships concerning typical
contrastive shapes and arrangements of linguistic elements, functioning
in a system, the study of vocabulary has turned away from chance
observation and made considerable scientific progress.
Thus, statistical analysis is applied in different branches of
linguistics including lexicology as a means of verification and as a
reliable criterion for the selection of the language data provided
qualitative description of lexical items is available.
I.3. Immediate Constituents Analysis
The theory of Immediate Constituents (IC) was originally elaborated as
an attempt to determine the ways in which lexical units are relevantly
related to one another. It was discovered that combinations of such
units are usually structured into hierarchically arranged sets of binary
constructions. For example in the word-group a black dress in severe
style we do not relate a to black, black to dress, dress to in. but set
up a structure which may be represented as a black dress / in severe
style. Thus the fundamental aim of IC analysis is to segment a set of
lexical units into two maximally independent sequences or ICs thus
revealing the hierarchical structure of this set. Successive
segmentation results in Ultimate Constituents (UC), two-facet units that
cannot be segmented into smaller units having both sound-form and
meaning. The Ultimate Constituents of the word-group analysed above are:
a | black | dress | in | severe | style.
It is mainly to discover the derivational structure of words that IC
analysis is used in lexicological investigations. For example, the verb
denationalise has both a prefix de- and a suffix -ise (-ize). To decide
whether this word is a prefixal or a suffixal derivative we must apply
IC analysis. The binary segmentation of the string of morphemes making
up the word shows that *denation or *denational cannot be considered
independent sequences as there is no direct link between the prefix de-
and nation or national. In fact no such sound-forms function as
independent units in modern English. The only possible binary
segmentation is de | nationalise, therefore we may conclude that the
word is a prefixal derivative. There are also numerous cases when
identical morphemic structure of different words is insufficient proof
of the identical pattern of their derivative structure which can be
revealed only by IC analysis. Thus, comparing, snow-covered and
blue-eyed we observe that both words contain two root-morphemes and one
derivational morpheme. IC analysis, however, shows that whereas
snow-covered may be treated as a compound consisting of two stems snow +
covered, blue-eyed is a suffixal derivative as the underlying structure
as shown by IC analysis is different, (blue+eye)+-ed. In Ukrainian:
без/совіс/ний, за/турк/ан/ий, ні/куди/ш/ній, без/пом/іч/н/ий, зрад/н/ик,
за/прод/ан/ець, не/роз/суд/л/ив/ий, роз/важ/л/ив/ий, без/перспектив/ний,
It may be inferred from the examples discussed above that ICs represent
the word-formation structure while the UCs show the morphemic structure
of polymorphic words.
I.4. Distributional Analysis and Co-occurrence
Distributional analysis in its various forms is commonly used nowadays
by lexicologists of different schools of thought. By the term
distribution we understand the occurrence of a lexical unit relative to
other lexical units of the same level (words relative to words /
morphemes relative to morphemes). In other words by this term we
understand the position which lexical units occupy or may occupy in the
text or in the flow of speech. It is readily observed that a certain
component of the word-meaning is described when the word is identified
distributionally. For example, in the sentence The boy — home the
missing word is easily identified as a verb — The boy went, came, ran,
home. Thus, we see that the component of meaning that is
distributionally identified is actually the part-of-speech meaning but
not the individual lexical meaning of the word under analysis. It is
assumed that sameness / difference in distribution is indicative of
sameness / difference in part-of-speech meaning.
According to Z. Harris, “The distribution of an element is the total of
all environments in which it occurs, the sum of all the (different)
positions (or occurrences) of an element relative to the occurrence of
other elements”. In Soviet linguistics this definition has been
improved, applied on different levels and found fruitful in semasiology.
The “total” mentioned by Z. Harris is replaced by configurations,
combining generalized formulas of occurrence with valency. Defining word
classes for distributional analysis depends on the structural use of the
word in the sentence.
Observation is facilitated by coding. In this, words are replaced by
conventional word-class symbols. Each analyst suggests some variant
suitable to his particular purpose. A possible version of notation is N
for nouns and words that can occupy in the sentence the same position,
such as personal pronouns. To indicate the class to which nouns belong
subscripts are used; so that Np means a personal noun, Nm — a material
noun, Ncoll — a collective noun, etc. V stands for verbs. A — for
adjectives and their equivalents, D — for adverbs and their equivalents.
Prepositions and conjunctions are not coded.
Observation is further facilitated by simplifying the examples so that
only words in direct syntactic connection with the head-word remain.
Thus, when studying the verb make, for example: The old man made Henry
laugh aloud may be reduced to The man made Henry laugh.
Until recently the standard context was taken to be the sentence, now it
is often reduced to a phrase, so that this last example may be rewritten
as to make somebody laugh.
When everything but the head-word of the phrase is coded we obtain the
distributional formula: make+ Np + V
The examples collected are arranged according to their distributional
formulas, and the analyst receives a complete idea of the environments
the language shows for the word in question. The list of structures
characteristic of the word’s distribution is accompanied by examples:
Make + a + N – make a coat, a machine, a decision
Make + (the) + N + V – make the machine go, make somebody work
Make + A – make sure
Make + a + A+N – make a good wife.
In each of these examples the meaning of make is different. Some of
these patterns, however, may be used for several meanings of the word
make, so that the differentiation of meanings is not complete. Compare,
for instance, the following sentences, where the pattern make + N
remains unchanged, although our intuition tells us that the meaning of
make is not the same:
60 minutes make an hour.
60 people make a decision.
A phrase, all elements of which, including the head-word, are coded, is
called a distributional pattern, for instance to make somebody laugh to
V1 Np V2
Get + N (receive) – get letter
Get + Adj (become) – get angry
Get + Vinf (start) – get to think
йде дощ – іти + N явище природи rainfalls
йде поїзд – іти + N неістота train runs
йде чоловік -іти + N істота man goes (walks)
йде дим – іти + N неістота it smokes
йде зима – іти + N неістота winter approaches
іде заміж marries
іде на пенсію retires
іде конем (у шахи) moves the knight
To conclude, distribution defined as the occurrence of a lexical unit
relative to other lexical units can be interpreted as co-occurrence of
lexical items and the two terms can be viewed as synonyms.
It follows that by the term distribution we understand the aptness of a
word in one of its meanings to collocate or to co-occur with a certain
group, or certain groups of words having some common semantic component.
I.5. Transformational Analysis
Transformational analysis in lexicological investigations may be defined
as re-patterning of various distributional structures in order to
discover difference or sameness of meaning of practically identical
Word-groups of identical distributional structure when re-patterned also
show that the semantic relationship between words and consequently the
meaning of word-groups may be different. For example, in the word-groups
consisting of a possessive pronoun followed by a noun, his car, his
failure, his arrest, his goodness, etc., the relationship between his
and the following nouns is in each instant different which can be
demonstrated by means of transformational procedures.
· his car (pen, table) may be re-patterned into he has a car (a pen, a
table) or in a more generalised form may be represented as A possesses
· his failure (mistake, attempt) may be represented as he failed (was
mistaken, attempted) or A performs В which is impossible in the case of
his car (pen, table).
· his arrest (imprisonment, embarrassment) may be re-patterned into he
was arrested (imprisoned and embarrassed) or A is the goal of the action
· his goodness (kindness, modesty) may be represented as he is good
(kind, modest) or В is the quality of A.
Болільник – той, хто уболіває
Зрадник – той, хто зрадив
Чайник – те, що призначено (посуд) для заварювання чаю
Спільник – той, хто діє спільно з кимсь у незаконній справі
Здирник – той, хто здирає, вимагає шляхом примусу і погроз
Супутник – той, хто йде, їде разом
Могильник – сховище чогось шкідливого, непотрібного, відпрацьованого
Намордник – те, що надівають па морду
Полярник- той, хто досліджує полярні райони
Ливарник – той, хто відливає металеві вироби
Хабарник – той, хто бере хабарі
Types of transformation differ according to purposes for which
transformations are used.
· additiоn (or expansion)
Transformational procedures are also used as will be shown below in
componental analysis of lexical units.
I.6. Componential Analysis
Componential analysis is thus an attempt to describe the meaning of
words in terms of a universal inventory of semantic components and their
Componential approach to meaning has a long history in linguistics.
L. Hjelmslev’s commutation deals with similar relationships and may be
illustrated by proportions from which the distinctive features d1, d2,
d3 are obtained by means of the following procedure:
d1 = ‘boy’ = ‘man’ = ‘bull’
‘girl’ ‘woman’ ‘cow’
d2 = ‘boy’ = ‘girl’
d3 = ‘boy’ = ‘girl’
As the first relationship is that of male to female, the second, of
young to adult, and the third, human to animal, the meaning ‘boy’ may be
characterized with respect to the distinctive features d1, d2, d3 as
containing the semantic elements ‘male’, ‘young’ and ‘human’. The
existence of correlated oppositions proves that these elements are
recognized by the vocabulary.
In criticizing this approach, the English linguist Prof. W. Haas argues
that the commutation test looks very plausible if one has carefully
selected examples from words entering into clear-cut semantic groups,
such as terms of kinship or words denoting colours. It is less
satisfactory in other cases, as there is no linguistic framework by
which the semantic contrasts can be limited. The commutation test
borrows its restrictions from philosophy.
A very close resemblance to componential analysis is the method of
logical definition by dividing a genus into species and species into
subspecies indispensable to dictionary definitions. It is therefore but
natural that lexicographic definitions lend themselves as suitable
material for the analysis of lexical groups in terms of a finite set of
semantic components. Consider the following definitions given in
Cow— a full grown female of any animal of the ox family.
Calf — the young of the cow.
The first definition contains all the elements we have previously
obtained from proportional oppositions. The second is incomplete but we
can substitute the missing elements from the previous definiton. It is
possible to describe parts of the vocabulary by formalising these
definitions and reducing them to some standard form according to a set
Componential analysis may be also arrived at through transformational
procedures. It is assumed that sameness / difference of transforms is
indicative of sameness / difference in the componental structure of the
lexical unit. The example commonly analysed is the difference in the
transforms of the structurally identical lexical units, puppydog,
bulldog, lapdog. The difference in the semantic relationship between the
stems of the compounds and hence the difference in the component of the
word-meaning is demonstrated by the impossibility of the same type of
transforms for all these words. Thus, a puppydog may be transformed into
‘a dog (which) is a puppy’, bull-dog, however, is not ‘a dog which is a
bull’, neither is a lapdog ‘a dog which is a lap’. A bulldog may be
transformed into ‘a bulllike dog’, or ‘a dog which looks like a bull’,
but a lapdog is not ‘a dog like a lap’.
свекор – (фізичний об’єкт) (живий) (людина) (чоловік) (той, хто має
одруженого сина) (по відношенню до дружини сина)
холостяк – (фізичний об’єкт) (живий) (людина) (чоловік) (дорослий) (той,
що ніколи не одружувався)
рухатися (щодо живої істоти) (по землі) (пересуваючи ноги)
плентатися (щодо живої істоти) (по землі) (пересуваючи ноги) (повільно,
I.7. Method of Semantic Differential
All the methods of semantic analysis discussed above are aimed mainly or
exclusively at the investigation of the denotational component of the
The analysis of the differences of the connotational meaning is very
hard since the nuances are often slight, difficult to grasp and do not
yield themselves to objective investigation and verification.
An attempt to establish and display these differences was developed by a
group of American psycholinguists. They set up a technique known as the
semantic differential by means of which, as they claim, meaning can be
measured. It is perfectly clear, however, that what semantic
differential measures is not word-meaning in any of accepted senses of
the term but the connotational component of meaning or to be more exact
the emotive charge.
Their technique requires the subjects to judge a series of concepts with
respect to a set of bipolar (antonymic) adjective scales. For example, a
concept like horse is to be rated as to the degree to which it is good
or bad, fast or slow, strong or weak, etc.
The meaning of the seven divisions is, taking as an example the first of
the scales represented above, from left to right: extremely good, quite
good, slightly good, neither good nor bad (or equally good and bad)
slightly bad, quite bad, extremely bad.
In the diagram above horse is described as neither good nor bad,
extremely fast, quite strong, slightly hard, equally happy and sad. The
responses of the subjects produce a semantic profile representing the
emotive charge of the word.
I.8. Contextual Analysis
Contextual analysis concentrates its attention on determining the
minimal stretch of speech and the conditions necessary to reveal in
which of its individual meanings the word in question is used. In
studying this interaction of the polysemantic word with the syntactic
configuration and lexical environment contextual analysis is more
concerned with specific features of every particular language than with
Roughly, context may be subdivided into lexical, syntactical and mixed.
Lexical context, for instance, determines the meaning of the word black
in the following examples. Black denotes colour when used with a
key-word naming some material or thing, black velvet, black gloves. When
used with keywords denoting feeling or thought, it means ‘sad’,
‘dismal’: black thoughts, black despair. With nouns denoting time, the
meaning is ‘unhappy’, ‘full of hardships’: black days, black period.
In Ukrainian: чорне діло; чорна справа – підступні вчинки, які
викликають огиду, осуд, чорне слово – лайливий вираз із згадуванням
чорта, чорний ворон – машина, в якій перевозять заарештованого. чорні
дні – дуже важкий час, сповнений неприємних клопотів, страждань, нужди,
чорна хмара (туча) – Дуже сумний, похмурий, невеселий, невдоволений.
If, on the other hand, the indicative power belongs to the syntactic
pattern and not to the words which make it up, the context is called
syntactic. Make means ‘to cause’ when followed by a complex object: I
couldn’t make him understand a word 1 said.
A purely syntactic context is rare. As a rule the indication comes from
syntactic, lexical and sometimes morphological factors combined. Thus
late, when ussd predicatively, means ‘after the right, expected or-fixed
time’, as to be late for school. When used attributively with words
denoting periods of time, it means ‘towards the end of the period’, in
late summer. Used attributively with proper personal nouns and preceded
with a definite article, late means ‘recently dead’.
To sum up, the study of details may be more exact with the contextual
Acquaintance with the currently used procedures of linguistic
investigation shows that contrastive analysis and statistical analysis
are widely used in the preparation of teaching material and are of
primary importance for teachers of English.
The special interest of contemporary science in methods of linguistics
research extends over a period of about twenty five years. The present
status of principles and techniques in lexicology, although still far
from satisfactory, shows considerable progress. The structural
synchronic approach may be said to have grown into a whole system of
procedures which can be used either successively or alternately.
The main procedures belonging to this system are the analysis into
immediate constituents; distributional analysis with substitution test
as part of it; transformational analysis; componential analysis, and
Bach of these techniques viewed separately has its limitations but taken
together they complete one another, so that each successive procedure
may prove helpful where the previous one has failed. We have considered
these devices time and again in discussing separate aspects of the
vocabulary system. All these are formalized methods in the sense that
they replace the original words in the linguistic material sampled, for
analysis by symbols that can be discussed without reference to the
particular elements they stand for, and then state precise rules for the
combination and transformation of formulas thus obtained.
1. Арнольд И.В. Лексикологя современного английского языка. -3-е изд.,
перераб. и доп.- М.: Высшая школа, 1986.-295 с.
2. Ахматова О.С., Глушко М.М. Основы компонентного анализа.- М.,
3. Бродська В. Лексико-стилістичний аналіз тексту методом статистичної
лексикографії. – Чернівці: Рута, 2003. — 199 с.
4. Верба Л.Г. Порівняльна лексикологія англійської та української мов.
-Вінниця: Нова книга, 2003.-160 с.
5. Гальперин И.Р. Стилистика английского языка.- 2-е изд., испр. и
доп.- М.: Высшая школа, 1977.- 332 с.
6. Головин Б.И. Из курса лексики по лингвистической статистике.-
Горький, 1966.-285 с.
7. Зеленько А.С.Основи лексикології (під кутом зору теорії
лінгвістичного детермінізму) : Моногр. дослідж. – Луганськ: Альма-матер,
2003. -178 с.
8. Лексикология английского языка: Р.З. Гинзбург, С.С. Хидекель, Г.Ю.
Князева.- 2-е изд., испр. и доп.- М.: Высшая школа, 1979.- 269 с.
9. Фрумина Р.М. Статистические методы изучения лексики. -М., 1992.-206
10. Порівняльна лексикологія : Конспект лекцій та дидакт. матеріал для
студ. лінгв. спец. / Черкас. інж.-технол. ін-т; [Уклад.: Лещенко Г.В. та
ін.] — Черкаси, 2000. – 86 c.
11. Українська мова : Лексикологія. Фразеологія. Словотвір: Навч.-метод.
комплекс. / Карпалюк В.С., Каньоса П.С., Карпалюк Н.В.; Кам’янець-Поділ.
держ. ун-т. — Кам’янець-Подільський: [Мошак], 2004. – 207 с.
12. Українська практична лексикологія, фонетика, орфографія /
А.П.Загнітко, Л.І.Пац, Л.І.Дубовик, О.Г.Важеніна. — Донецьк: Бао, 2007.
– 328 с.
13. Harris Z.S.Methods in Structural Linguistics.-London, 2003. – 321 c.
Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter