Synthetic stratum vs. Analyticised stratum

Vocabulary is the most susceptible to various innovations sub­system of language. English vocabulary is very heterogeneous since every subethnic group within the constantly changing English speaking community has left its own verbal legacy. This gave Daniel Defoe the right to speak about English as «your Roman-Saxon-Danish-Norman English» [quoted after Hughes 1989: 5].

Furthermore, there exists a clear sociolinguistic connection be­tween the social and functional status of every subethnic group and the register of its verbal legacy. There are even some general typo­logical distinctions between different etymological strata of words. The peculiar interaction of typological, etymological and ethnic fac­tors led in the long run to the emergence in the English vocabulary of two typologically diverging strata, whose relations might be described as coexistence [Plotkin: 214-225; 232]

Taking into account the typological aspect we can call the two strata analyticised (core words) and synthetic (periphery words) respectively.

A quantitative historical analysis of the English core words shows that in the course of its history the English lexical system has undergone deep changes (both quantitative and qualitative by nature). These changes reflect a powerful influence coming from extralinguistic factors, such as ethnogenetic, especially cross-ethnic contacts in the creative epochs of the English ethnogenesis. These are such periods which are associated with the formation of the specifically English ethnocultural type (especially from c. V to XIV c.). The quantitative distribution of the functional load of each etymological lexical stratum in the core of modern English looks like this: about 35 % of the core words are native (Anglo-Saxon) monosyllables, 18 % are Anglo-Saxon disyllables, 9% - Scandinavian monosyllables, 4 % - Scandinavian disyllables, 15 % - French monosyllables, 19 % - French disyllables [Shaposhnikova 1999: 107-135; 2003: 38-42].

The qualitative functional parameters of each etymological stratum in the core can be explained via specific character of the cross-ethnic contacts between the ethnic communities in each particular period associated with the emergence of each analysed stratum. A historical and typological analysis shows that the intensive cross-ethnic contacts have caused great losses in the Anglo-Saxon lexical system. As compensatory means, to preserve the genetic adequacy, the language developed three typological trends (strategies): 1) the gradual growth of the functional load of the Anglo-Saxon lexemes (hence: their polyfunctionality, polysemy, etc.). This process was accompanied by a structural simplification. 2) The Germanic lexical legacy was considerably enriched with structurally and genetically similar Scandinavian borrowings. The percentage of the Germanic core words is now about 66 %. 3) Structural and functional “mimicry” of early French (Romance) borrowings acquiring more and more core features (like Germanic words).

Thus when one compares the functional potentials of native and non-native words in English, one should always bear in mind that c.34 % of the core words are French in origin and their emergence in the core is due to ethnic factors, this lexical stratum is a legacy of the categorization of ethnocultural experience resulting from the cross-ethnic contacts at subethnic and superethnic levels during the creative periods of the English ethnogenesis.

The analyticised stratum includes all native (Germanic) words and early borrowings: mostly from the other Germanic languages, partially from Latin, a bit later — root-words from Romance lan­guages. On the contrary, the synthetic stratum includes only bor­rowings from the Romance, Latin and Greek languages.

Let us compare the two strata.

Analyticised words 1. They have developed a mono-or disyllabic structure,i.e. they are now mostly root-words.They have undergone English historical sound changes. Their phonetic shape is based on the English rhythmic peculiarities. 2. They are characterized by stability of accentin their para­digms: Cf: 'lazy — 'laziness — lazier 'busy — 'busier — 'busily,etc.     3. They display part-of-speechpolyfunctionality, i.e. they do not belong to parts of speech as lexico-morphological classes. Cf.: a roundtable (adjective) another round(noun) come round(adverb) to roundthe corner at a high speed (verb) roundthe corner (prep). 4. They are less active in affixa­tion; usually prefer native af­fixes(of Germanic origin). Af­fixes join to the roots without fusion,words are easily seg­mented into morphemes. sharp — sharpen — sharpness — sharply hope — hopeful — hopefully—hopeful­ness — hopeless, etc. Cf.: O. E. mod – modig – modiglic – modigian, modignes     5. They are very active in the so-called self-explaining compounds(some of them are also called embedded structures·).All these compoundings readily segment into independent roots: mother-to-be heavyweight, housewife, ready-to-wear, up-to-the-minute. Cf. O. E. freomaeg (free or noble kinsman), nydgefera (companion in need). 6. There is normally no transition from the analyticised stratum to the synthetic one.     7. They are very active in analytical lexical models[see §2 above] 8. They are usually poly­semantic.Many of them possess broadened semantic and combinatory potentials. Words with broad meaningsare capable of creating analytical constructions. They are often used as form words. Their meanings are syn­tactically determined(i.e. de­pend on the syntactic construc­tion) as in have a book (pen, stamp, etc.) but: have cut (made, played, etc.) but: have to go (play, wait, etc.) but: have my hair cut, etc. [See § 2 above]. 9. They are used in different registers(either informal or for­mal). They are especially typi­cal of colloquial style, very popu­lar in everyday speech: put off; give in; take part; take away; jut out; mark off; slow down

Synthetic words 1. They remain polysyllabicbecause reduction had already lost its force by the time they were borrowed. That is why these words preserved the af­fixes of the synthetic inflecting languages from which they had been borrowed. 2. They have several ac­cented syllables with different force of stress. Instability of accentcan be often observed in their paradigms. Cf.: 'flexible — flexibility cons'pire — conspiracy cons'pirator — conspira'torial As might be gathered from this paradigm, the rootsof such words may be unstablein their sound forms. 3.They characteristically belongto different parts of speech,i.e. their part-of-speech characteristics may be derived from their affixes. Cf. differs (adj.); difference (noun); differ (verb); differentiate (verb); recognize (verb); recognition (noun); recognizable (adj.).   4. Sets of relatedwords were borrowed almost simulta­neously. These words were bor­rowed together with their affixational models. Thus, they pre­serve their original synthetic character, sometimes fusion occurs: in / im / il / ir are diffe­rent variants of one and the same Latin prefix. The form of this prefix varies according to the rules of Latin grammar. Cf: irregular, immortal, inarticulate, illegal. The affixesin the words given above are also borrowed. 5. They form very few new compoundings, as a rule, they have been borrowed as ready-made compoundings. These compoundings have linking vowels to join the bound root-morphemes: psychotherapy, sociology, electrotechnology, telephone, television, monosyllabic.   6. Polysyllabic words can acquire analytical properties through shortening: ad — advertisement; mime—pantomime; lab — laboratory; memo, hi-fi, porno, comfy, etc. 7. They are not capable of entering analytical models as readily as analyticised words do, though periphrastic analytical constructions are possible: make a proposal (to propose) New analytical lexemes do not emerge on their basis.     8. They are not used as form words; they do not develop broad meanings though can be polyse­mantic. Their part-of-speech meaning is explicit in their form, but in the nuances of their mea­nings they depend on the neigh­bouring wordsin one and the same syntactic construction: I recognized Mary in the picture. The government recognizedhis services by making him a lord. 9. They are semantically and syntactically specified.That is why they are common as termsand belong to formal registers.They are often out of place in everyday informal speech. Postpone; capitulate; participate; deprive; protrude; distinguish; decelerate, etc.

Though the synthetic stratum lies outside “the mainstream of the typological evolution of English, its emergence and existence are maintained by the international function of English as the lingua franca of the modern world”[Plotkin 1989]. The number of these words has been increasing together with the expansion of English. In the Middle English period alone, about ten thousand French words were adopted by English, 75% of those words are still in current use [Baugh 1978: 178]. According to John Nist, «The original Anglo-Saxon language is esti­mated to have had 50,000—60,000 words, many exclusively reserved for poetry: the Scandinavian invasions contributed about 2,000, while the influx of the Norman conquerors swelled the hybrid language of Middle English to approximately 100,000—125,000 words. The steady accretion of Latin words resulted in the Renaissance form of the language (Early Modern English) being twice the verbal volume of Middle English. The vocabulary of Modern English is now well in excess of half a million words»[Nist, quoted after Hughes 1989: 21].

References

Baugh 1978 - Baugh, A.C. Cable Th. A History of the English Language. London, 1978. 438 p.

Hughes 1989 - Hughes, G. Words in Time. A Social History of the English Vocabulary. Oxford, 1989. 270 p.

Nist 1966 - Nist, J. A Structural History of English. N.Y., 1966 (is quoted here after Hughes, Geoffrey).

Petrova 2005 – Петрова Т. А. Свернутые конструкции как тип сложных номинативных единиц в современном английском языке // Аналитизм германских языков в историко-типологическом, когнитивном и прагматическом аспектах. Монография.Новосибирск: НГУ, 2005. С. 131 – 180.

Plotkin 1989 - Плоткин В.Я. Строй английского языка. М., 1989. 240 c.

Shaposhnikova 1997 - Shaposhnikova, I. V. A History of the English Language. The Early Period (Linguo-ethnic Approach). Irkutsk, 1997. 207 p.

Shaposhnikova 2003 – - Шапошникова И.В. Этнолингвистический анализ текста в курсе истории английского языка: Учеб. пособие для студентов и аспирантов лингвистических университетов. Новосибирск: Изд-во НГПУ, 2003. 253 с.

Yule, G. The Study of Language. An Introduction. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985. 220 p.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-02