Стаття присвячена характеристиці лексичних процесів у сучасній англійській мові (у зіставленні з
українською), встановленню природи і причин історичних змін в лексичному складі англійської мови (порівняно
з українською), розмежуванню літературної / розмовної форми функціонування англійської мови (у зіставленні
з українською), кваліфікуванню типів неологізмів в обох зіставлюваних мовах.
Ключові слова: «важке слово», неологізм морфологічного типу, малапропізм, калька, вторинна
номінація, власне-неологізм, перейменування, трансномінація, переосмислення, фонетичний неологізм,
ономатопея.

Under the global integration that results in strengthening intercultural relations, development of languages,
including English and Ukrainian, is a rapid process, in particular on the lexical level, which is not always predictable.
Analysis of examples adjusted by many authors, particularly A. Paunder, L. Bauer, R. Lieber et al., who are concerned
about this fact, revealed new structural types of lexical items, such as fragmented elements (splinters), a significant
number of highly unstable compound nouns with a separate writing, but common unifying accent (block compounds)
and a creation on their basis of compound words / pseudo-compound words (other parts of speech), whose self-
morphological identity usually defined only within a specific context for the fulfillment of their syntactic role, that is,
their appearance has a strengthening influence of analogy in the formation of composites / quasi-composites that can
lead to structural changes of lexical units, including the conversion of compound words in derivatives for potentially
unlimited number of new words with unstable and unpredictable grammatically-categorical indicators.
This process is one of the differential features of present-day English, especially British (BE) and American
(AmE) variants as competitors that stand out against other variants of English (such as the Australian or Canadian ones)
with multiplicity of media, geographical area due to extralinguistic factors of their spread – as the classic, ‘original ‘,
‘true’ English (as claimed by some supporters of BE) in the status of one of the languages of international
communication and as less conservative language with signs of language-cosmopolitan, that absorbed into itself the
elements of other languages, which directly contacted, and in the role of the language of the powerful state in the world
(AmE), respectively. Lack of substantial research in this area makes the relevance of proposed research.
However, a comprehensive analysis of innovative processes that currently take place in the English language (as
opposed to Ukrainian), primarily on the lexical level, not be possible without the differentiation of specific and
borrowed items, events, processes, etc. in modern English in comparison with the Ukrainian that is the purpose of our
study. It is quite obvious there is a determination of the main tasks, namely: a characterization of lexical processes in
present-day English (in comparison with Ukrainian) and their historical interpreting, an establishing of the nature and
causes of historical 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 neologisms in both
languages.
A characteristic feature of English (compared to Ukrainian) is that currently, according to the most Anglicists,
there contained up to 70% of the words borrowed from other languages, that repeatedly gave cause for concern for
linguists about this, primarily because fear of loss of English identity [Benczes 2006].
Indeed, in the English language can fairly easily identify words borrowed in different periods of its development
from many languages as media of cultures, which for some time were in contact with the English native speakers,
including Latin, Greek, Old French, Scandinavian languages and others. This has affected grammatical level of English,
which also became the borrowings, such as articles, some prepositions, auxiliary verbs from Germanic languages.
Intensification of trade relations and the adoption of Christianity also contributed, adding to the English lexicon Latin
school „школа‟, priest „священик‟, pepper „перець‟, wine „вино‟, devil „диявол‟ (cf. with the Ukrainian language,
which is observed also a significant flow of words from classical languages, but mainly Greek, since Rus took
Byzantine Christianity, not Roman). Since the end of VIIIth century a numerous group of Danish words appears (due to
raids by Scandinavian Vikings), without which it is impossible to imagine a modern English, including: get
„отримувати‟, take „брати‟, they „вони‟, leg „нога‟, husband „чоловік‟, cut „різати‟, shirt „сорочка‟, ugly
„потворний‟, whole „весь, цілий‟, wrong „неправильний‟, and in the XVIth century English replenished a Latin
terminology: access „доступ‟, commission „повноваження, доручення‟, concept „поняття, ідея‟, complain „скарга‟
© Putilina O.L., 2012 ЛІНГВІСТИЧНІ СТУДІЇ. Випуск 25

90
and so on, that on average perceived as the native English vocabulary by an ordinary English speaker, rather than
borrowing.
As rightly observes L. Lipka, modern English is the result of two national disasters – Western Roman invasion
and Norman conquest, and thus is a mixture as languages of conquerors. According to E. Leisi, contemporary English is
a unique mixture of Germanic and Romance elements and this mixing has resulted in the international character of the
vocabulary, for example: the German equivalent to Tier is or animal, or beast in English; German Wagen can be
interpreted a number of English synonyms, such as car, cart, carriage, and chariot; as equivalent to nachdenken or
ьberlegen function English think, reflect, meditate, ponder and cogitate. Clearly, the structure of the vocabulary is
different in both languages: actually, the structure of English vocabulary has suffered a strong influence from both
languages, as a result of this today English can boast a variety of synonyms-words of different languages, including
Germanic and Romance origin [Lipka 2002: 14].
This is also true for the negative consequences of the mixing of languages. English linguist E. Leise treats these
under the «hard words» («важкими словами») [Leisi, Watts 1984: 68], setting off in their number and them (on the
principles of traditional English lexicography) words of Latin or Greek origin, which pose many problems for those
who hold the classical languages, such as speakers consciously / unconsciously seek motivation or equivalent to those
words. This may lead to more or less funny mistakes and erroneous use, so-called malapropisms. Thus, for example,
epitaph „епітафія‟ and epithet „епітет‟, so you can easily confuse illiterate „неграмотний, неук‟ and illegitimate
„незаконнонароджений, позашлюбний‟. Words аllegory „алегорія‟, alligator „алігатор‟ and atheist „атеїст‟ is a
continuation of the list. Thus, misunderstanding, discrepancy, ambiguity and other phenomena that have “social
consequences” of such difficulties, according to E. Leisi only deepen the processes of dilution etymological and social
values taken “difficult words” and provide the foundations for the creation by their sample of new words from the
wrong semantic motivation.
It is certainly true that all languages are mixtures to a greater or lesser extent. Comparing English to German and
French, however, E. Leisi comes to the conclusion that the present-day English vocabulary is unique in this respect
[Leisi, Watts 1984: 58]. Through cultural contact with the Romans, partly already on the Continent, and also through
the influence of Christianity, a very early stratum of Latin-Greek words entered the language. This origin is no longer
belong to the normal speaker today in words such as dish, cheese, mint, pound, devil (before the 10th century),
assistance, text, history, maturity, polite, scripture (the 17th century). The same holds for some Scandinavian words
from about the 10th century that today belong to the central core of the vocabulary. This means that their frequency is
very high. The stratum contains: they, them, their, sky, skin, ill, die, cast and take – they partly replace some of the Old
English words that are now seen as outdated, eg., heofon „небо, небеса‟ (modern sky, Heaven) or niman „брати‟ (a
modern take).
However, the impact of classical languages on modern English is still strong, as evidenced by a diverse group of
formations such as morphological (Neo-classical Compounds), or neo-classical compound words, a necessary measure
which is the basis / bases of Latin or Greek origin (in the Ukrainian language lexemes are come mainly through English
as a one of the languages of international communication that has international status and sociocultural and
psychological significance in the minds of many speakers of other languages, and have their counterparts, ie origin from
classical languages is lost, or may have a partial equivalent of Greek / Latin morph), eg.: aerocapture „гальмування
космічного корабля‟ – describing translation into Ukrainian with the loss of Greek base, autocue „телесуфлер‟ –
Greek autos = self in the Ukrainian language has another Greek equivalent теле- (partial replacement), autohypnosis
„самонавіювання‟ – complete loss of the classic signs of origin while maintaining grammatical model, megaversity
„великий університет, можливо, утворений унаслідок злиття кількох‟ – partial loss (of the first component mega-),
multipack „набір продуктів, готове замовлення для кур‟єрської доставки‟ – total loss of the Latin morph, as well as
in paraschool „школа на громадських засадах, наприклад, в американській діаспорі‟ or autogestion „робоче
самоврядування‟ (from the Latin gestare = carred) and so on.
A more radical changes and profound influence on the English vocabulary occered in the wake of the Norman
coquest of 1066. Until the 15th century a great number of French words were adopted that belonged especially to the
areas of court, state, law, and church (another possible generalization) such as: sovereign, country, minister, parliament,
noble, honour, justice, religion, service, virtue, vice, Pity, beauty, and preach, arch, chaste [Stockwell, Minkova 2001].
Massive borrowing French words was extremely active until 1400 but, in fact, lasted until the 17th century.
These early words are distinguished from later French loans, such as champagne and machine, by phonological
peculiarities of the latter, namely the pronunciation [∫] instead of [t∫]. According to R. Carter, T. McEnery, R. Xiao,
Y. Tono, adoption and assimilation of French words at various times prepared the ground for the invasion of learned
words (mostly terminological character) of Latin and Greek origin (from the classical languages of science and
education) during the humanistic period [Carter 1998: 60; McEnery, Xiao, Tono 2006: 102]. Many English
lexicologists recognized the group of Old French borrowings is the most numerous (about a quarter of the active
vocabulary of modern consumption), and the time of their appearance is considered to be already mentioned 1066 –
Norman conquest of England, which brought a French as a language of prestige and power, from its Norman dialect the
Anglo-Norman language formed later – the official language of this areas that functioned to end of 14th century in
parallel with the native English: city „місто‟, entrance „вхід‟, difficult „важкий, складний‟, flexible „гнучкий‟,
disappointment „розчарування, зневіра‟, movement „рух‟, government „уряд‟, court „суд‟, admirable „чудовий‟, Розділ V. АКТУАЛЬНІ ПРОБЛЕМИ ЗІСТАВНО-ТИПОЛОГІЧНОГО ВИВЧЕННЯ МОВ

91
goddess „богиня‟, solitude „самотність, усамітнення‟, battle „битва, сутичка‟ etc. Sociolinguistic factors in the
development of English language of this period is dominated, as evidenced by formed groups of vocabulary to describe
the power (duke, duchess, count, countess), the government as a medium power (parliament, government), law (accuse,
attorney, crime), fashion concepts (dress, apparel), arts (music, poem), moral (courtesy, charity). The modern
phenomenon of parallel operation of lexeme as a sign of speaker belonging to the persons with some variant of English
by many features similar to the social and stylistic differentiation of 11th-14th centuries: English and French words are
often served as equivalents, describing the speaker’s social identity as the lower strata of society to take lexemes from
Old English period, eg., cow, sheep, swine, and representatives of the nobles used French correlates, beef, mutton, pork,
when it came to food (meat from these animals) that only they could afford.
Influence of French and other Romance languages English still feels that its effect on vocabulary and turns
especially through the emergence of a large number of neologisms, which can be attributed to vellums (although it must
be noted a substantial reduction of their number the last 10 years), for example: dialogue of the deaf (tracing the French
dialogue des sours) „дискусія, в якій учасники не зважають на аргументи співрозмовника‟, photonovel (from the
Spanish fotonovela) „фотороман, роман, що складається зі світлин, зазвичай із діалоговими вставками у стилі
коміксів‟, sound and light (from the French son et lumier) „звук і світло (різновид театру)‟, cafй noir „чорна кава‟,
object de art „предмет мистецтва‟ and so on.
We mentioned before that as a positive result of the mixing of languages, the possibility of distinguishing fine
nuances of meaning arises. L. Lipka points out that the distinction between mainly, masculine, male, virile is not
parallel to that between womanly, womanish, female, feminine. This becomes clear if we analyze the performance of
lexemes` compatibility, each of which can realize the specifics of its semantics only in a narrow specialized context. It
must be added that it is impossible to capture the exact differences of meaning, unless we consider the combining
potential of these words, the so-called collocations. That is why, for example, the lexeme masculine can be combined
with style, woman and pronoun, but male cannot [Lipka 2002: 16]. As rightly pointed H. Jackson and E. Zй Amvela,
any language, including – English and Ukrainian, can not be considered “clear” («чистою») [Jackson, Amvela 2000] as
a percentage of loans are always present, but of course it is different in different languages, and hence the extent of his
influence on modern processes in the system language is different.
Overall, according to many modern Anglicists, researchers who engage in an emotional statement about the loss
of linguistic identity of English do not include the principal matter – namely, it retains its national identity when it
develops its own rules for phonetic and grammatical system, which subordinates the development and of logical system
[Lipka 2002: 14]. The demonstration in this context is the case, which occurred in the 17th century, when the British
were concerned preponderance of Latin words. English playwright Ben Jonson ridiculed this tendency even in the play
Poetastar (1601), where one of the characters formed a new word in the opinion of the author, or funny with a touch of
exaggeration: barmy froth, chilblained, clumsy, clutched, conscious, damp, defunct, fatuate, furibund, glibbery, incubus,
inflate, lubrical, magnificate, oblatrant, obstupefact, prorumpted, puffy, quaking custard, reciprocal, retrograde,
snarling gusts, snotteries, spurious, strenuous, turgidous, ventositous. Although it was a joke, an attempt to mock these
reality, many words from this list has settled down and function now: clumsy, conscious, damp, defunct, puffy,
reciprocal, retrograde, spurious і strenuous [Štekauer 2005].
Even if you accept that borrowing is a significant part of modern English vocabulary, we should agree with the
fact that they have varying degrees of adaptation to the English language system: part of them to some extent retains
originality graphics, sound and/or grammatical language-source, the rest is completely dissolved in the English
vocabulary, being perceived as a native language of English self-token (which happened, for example, with such
borrowings from Latin, as history, polite, maturity, that adapted to the requirements of English). This diversity has led
to a deep internal bundles in the English language both within the entire system of language in general and some of its
variants in particular (British, American, Australian, etc.), which has greatly contributed to the intensification of the
trend towards the separation of variants of the English language as relatively independent entities and strengthen the
sociolinguistic factors that determine the formation of the vocabulary. Furthermore, there is often an interrelationship
between various regional, social, and situational parameters which results in the choice of a specific lexical item. A
glance at the pair ill „хворий, жорстокий‟/ sick „хворий‟ alone will show that there are crucial differences between
British and American English, but also within each geographical variety, depending on specific collocations – cf.:
illness, sickness, be sick (on the boat), sick leave, sick parade = AmE sick call.
All this provoked the emergence different interpretations of modern English vocabulary (unlike the Ukrainian,
for which researchers have more or less unanimous in its findings) and distribution of active / passive on changes,
including the appearance of new structures, especially as a result of borrowing, areas (including – depending of research
tasks – classification by sources of borrowing, by assimilating the forms and degree of importance for the thematic
groups, etc.). L. Lipka sticky notes that the representation starts out from the assumption that the vocabulary of English
contains a large central area, which is common to all media, styles, and social classes. This concept of common English,
symbolized by COMMON „звичайна, повсякденна‟, is equivalent, with respect to the lexicon, to the «common core»
treated in the University Grammar of English, which is present in all varieties of English. This central area, which
contains words like eg come, father, chair, good, bad, very, is labeled «Common English» / «Colloquial English» (cf. a
similar situation with a live spoken Ukrainian language and the fundamental layer of the literary Ukrainian one). ЛІНГВІСТИЧНІ СТУДІЇ. Випуск 25

92
If we compare these two forms of existence of language, it should be noted that the «Literary», in the opinion of
the authors of Oxford Dictionary series, contains specific terminology, borrowing and archaisms, eg., Weltanschauung
„світогляд‟ or blasй „пересичений‟, and the transition from other «literary» words such as firmament, similitude,
whence, whither to the outer areas is gradual and fluid. On the other side «Colloquial» English contains dialectal and
vulgar elements, as well as words from slang and technical language (note that term slang often used by some
Anglicists as a name of speech of specific social groups, cf.: army slang, school slang, navy slang, and their frontiers
are often difficult to identify and distinguish from the proper jargon. There are thus no clear bounders between slang in
this sense and technical language) [Lipka 2002: 17-18].
But this approach to the structure of the lexicon of modern English does not reflect the emergence of neologisms
sources that appear equally in all these fields except the outdated language, but at the same time, the advantage of such
structuring are making loans in a separate area than identified significant percentage of tokens among all new
formations.
Overall, the English vocabulary continues to be updated by updating the new units. A. Pounder, L. Bauer,
R. Lieber note that the annual average in English (regardless of its variants) appears from 700 [Pounder 2006] to 800
[Bauer 2001] and even up to 1000 new words [Lieber 2004], more than in many other languages of the world
[Елисеева 2003]. This 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).
Appropriate here to cite the thesis of B. Serebrennikov, which equally applies to any language from world in
general and English and Ukrainian in particular, that “in the state of communicative life” language has always rebuild
and thrive, without losing the originality [Елисеева 2003]. This doesn`t mean that every new word that appears in the
English language (as in Ukrainian), will have an impact on its lexical system [Клименко, Карпіловська, Кислюк
2008], and more – will provoke certain effects on grammatical level, as a percentage of new lexemes falls into the
category of lexemes occasionalisms associated with a specific context, beyond which they are perceived by society as a
sign of its specific language. Only the presence of confounding factors of repeatedly testing in the media new token
may consolidate in a language ie it is lexecalizated then neologism adapts to the linguistic system, or may eventually
disappears completely from the broadcast media. This degree of adaptation as the degree of novelty may be different, so
today Anglicists offer whole array of new vocabulary to differentiate on the criteria of novelty (by value, in form or
meaning and form simultaneously), which is directly-proportional to a degree unadaption of tokens, to:
1) proper neologisms – words which have new meaning and a new form, eg.: biocomputer „біокомп‟ютер‟,
seadrome „аеродром на штучному острові‟, boatel „готель для тих, хто подорожує річкою‟;
2) rename (a species of transnomination), ie words that take on a new form with the preservation of already
known values, eg.: sudser (soap opera) „мильна опера, або телесеріал, тобто низькоякісний багатосерійний
телеспектакль на сімейні та побутові теми мелодраматичного, сентиментального характеру з постійними
персонажами, чиї переживання мають викликати сильні емоції в глядачів (першими спонсорами якого на Заході
були виробники мила)‟, fure fighter (fireman) „пожежник (наслідок впливу феміністського руху)‟, flight attendant
(stewardess) „бортпровідник/ бортпровідниця, тобто працівник / працівниця авіакомпанії, який / яка під час
перельоту дбає про комфорт і безпеку пасажирів (кол. стюардеса)‟;
3) reconsideration when the form is already functioning in the language takes on new meaning, for example:
bread (food) „хліб, їжа‟ → bread (money) „гроші‟, box (carton) „коробка, ящик‟ → box (TV-set) „телевізор‟, apple
(fruit) „яблуко‟ → apple (Indian man) „індіанець, який співпрацює з білими (людьми), з офіційними урядовими
організаціями‟.
It is clear that the first two groups include the use of internal resources of English derivational system (regardless
of language version). They also attributed phonetic neologisms – artificial configuration of sounds, often created for
commercial purposes (eg within promoaction to attract the target audience), including: terms, trademarks (often in
combination with morphemes of Greek or Latin origin) [Plag 2001]: Mc as cheap, easy, normal „дешевий, доступний,
зручний, стандартний‟ (MacCoffee, McCinema), acrylic (from the Greek hull ‘material’) as synthetic material „акрил,
синтетичний матеріал‟, perfol (from the Greek oleum ‘oil’) as plastic film „пластична плівка‟; exclamations, slang
items [Benczes 2006]: Hubba-hubba! „Оце так!‟, Tut-tut! „Ще чого!‟; zizz (British slang) as short sleep (imitation of
sounds, which gives the one who sleeps) „короткий сон (наслідування звуків, які видає той, хто спить)‟ – the result
of onomatopoeia (derivation by imitating sounds) [Дубенец 2003: 25], yeck, yuck (American slang) – exclamations,
which express an aversion, and so on. By contrast, the third group belongs to the secondary designation, and its
appearance is due primarily with extralinguistic reasons.
Thus, the modern English language, unlike the Ukrainian, is a combination of Germanic and Roman elements is
due to historical factors and explains the international character of its vocabulary. Thanks to cultural contact with Rome
and the influence of Christianity in the English vocabulary has formed a large group of Latin-Greek words, the number
continues to grow (in the Ukrainian language prevalent in this lexical-semantic field of Greek, not Latin borrowing). At
the present time in the Ukrainian language such lexemes come mainly through English as a result of sociocultural and
psychological factors with loss the origin from classical languages or as partial equivalents. In general, the vocabulary
of both languages continue to be updated by borrowings and secondary designation, and the degree of adaptation as the Розділ V. АКТУАЛЬНІ ПРОБЛЕМИ ЗІСТАВНО-ТИПОЛОГІЧНОГО ВИВЧЕННЯ МОВ

93
degree of novelty may be different, and lexeme is fixed in a language only in the presence of confounding factors of
approbation repeatedly in the media included.
Perspective of this study is to analyze the processes that deepen the internal stratification of modern English and
Ukrainian vocabularies as a whole system within each of the languages the whole and its individual variants in English
(EL) (British, American, Australian, etc.), the latter more deeper trends in the breeding options for English as a
relatively independent entities and strengthening of the sociolinguistic factors that determine the formation of
vocabulary as well as language forms exist mainly in the Ukrainian language (UL) (literary and spoken forms (UL) and
literary / common, colloquial (EL)) 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
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.
Клименко, Карпіловська, Кислюк 2008: Клименко, Н.Ф., Карпіловська, Є.А., Кислюк, Л.П. Динамічні
процеси в сучасному українському лексиконі : Монографія [Текст] / Н. Ф. Клименко, Є. А. Карпіловська,
Л. П. Кислюк. – К. : Видавничий Дім Дмитра Бураго, 2008. – 336 с. – ISBN 978-966-489-009-7.
Bauer 2001: Bauer, L. Morphological productivity [Text] / L. Bauer. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,
2001. – 245 pp. – ISBN 0 521 79238 X hardback
Benczes 2006: Benczes, R. Creative compounding in English: the semantics of metaphorical and metonymical
noun-noun combinations [Text] / R. Benczes. – Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006. – 205 pp. –
ISSN 1387-6724.
Carter 1998: Carter, R. Vocabulary : applied linguistic perspectives [Text] / R. Carter. – New York : Routledge,
1998. – 317 pp.
Jackson, Amvela 2000: Jackson, H., Amvela, E.Zй. Words, meaning and vocabulary: an introduction to modern
English lexicology [Text] / H. Jackson, E. Zй. Amvela. – New York : Continuum International Publishing Group,
2000. – 216 pp. – ISBN 0-8264-6096-8 (pbk).
Leisi, Watts 1984: Leisi, E., Watts, R.J. Modes of interpretation : essays presented to Ernst Leisi on the occasion
of his 65th birthday [Text] / E. Leisi, R. J. Watts. – Tьbinger : Gunter Narr Verlag, 1984. – 221 pp. – ISBN 3-87808-
860-4.
Lieber 2004: Lieber, R. Morphology and lexical semantics [Text] / R. Lieber. – Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press, 2004. – 196 pp. – ISBN 0 521 83171 hardback.
Lipka 2002: Lipka, L. English lexicology: lexical structure, word semantics & word-formation [Text] /
L. Lipka. – Tьbinger : Gunter Narr Verlag, 2002. – 244 рр. – ISBN 3-8233-4995-3.
McEnery, Xiao, Tono 2006: McEnery, T., Xiao, R., Tono, Y. Corpus-based language studies : an advanced
resource book [Text] / T. McEnery, R. Xiao, Y. Tono. – New York : Taylor & Francis, 2006. – 386 pp. – ISBN 10: 0-
415-28622-0(hbk).
Pounder 2000: Pounder, A. Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology [Text] / A. Pounder. –
Berlin : Walter de Gruyter, 2000. – 744 pp. – ISBN 3-11-016867-7.
Plag 2003: Plag, I. Word-formation in English [Text] / I. Plag. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,
2003. – 240 pp. – ISBN 0 521 52563 2 paperback.
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).
Štekauer 2005: Štekauer, P. Meaning predictability in word formation : novel, context-free naming units [Text] /
P. Štekauer. – Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005. – 288 pp. – ISBN 90 272 1563 (Eur.).

В статье рассматривается характеристика лексических процессов в современном английском языке (в
сопоставлении с украинским), устанавливается природа и причины исторических изменений в лексическом
составе английского языка (в сравнении с украинским), дифференцируются литературная / разговорная форма
функционирования английского языка (в сопоставлении с украинским), квалифицируются типы неологизмов в
сопоставляемых языках.
Ключевые слова: «тяжелые слова», неологизмы морфологического типа, малапропизм, калька,
вторичная номинация, собственно неологизм, переименование, трансноминация, переосмысление,
фонетический неологизм, ономатопея.

The paper denoted to a characterization of lexical processes in present-day English (in comparison with
Ukrainian), an establishing of the nature and causes of historical changes in the vocabulary of English (compared with ЛІНГВІСТИЧНІ СТУДІЇ. Випуск 25

94
the Ukrainian), a separation of literary / colloquial functioning form of English (in comparison with Ukrainian), a
classifying types of neologisms in both languages.
Keywords: «hard word», neo-classical compound, malapropism, tracing, secondary designation, proper
neologism, rename, transnomination, reconsideration, phonetic neologism, onomatopoeia.
Надійшла до редакції 18 листопада 2011 року.