However, «in the process of language development many of the graphical abbreviations penetrate into the sphere of oral intercourse, for instance, a.m., p.m., SOS, etc.

Transformation of word-groups into words involve different types of lexical shortening:

Ellipsis or substantivasation;

Initial letter or syllable abbreviations (achronyms);

Blendings.

Substantivisation consists in dropping the final nominal member of a frequently used attributive word-group.

E.g.: the finals from the final examinations; a documentary from a documentary film.

Acronyms and letter abbreviations are lexical abbreviations of a phrase. They are regular vocabulary units spoken as words.

E.g.: BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation; radar - radio detection and ranging; V-day - Victory Day.

Blendings are the result of conscious creation of words by merging irregular fragments of several words.

E.g.: brunch from breakfast and lunch; radiotrician from radio and electrician; mike from microplane.

Borrowings are neologisms borrowed from foreign languages. «The distinction should be made between:

(Rayevska: 248)

The last decades of the 20-th century characterized by an intensive development of various sciences, technique, culture, and political life, has brought to Modern English a lot of new formations.

Semantic Extention

Terminological use of words by people of various professional groups, where words modify their meaning acquiring a new sense;

E.g.: He is such a bear; Black coats walked along the street.

4) Elevation of meaning (amelioration)

E.g.: «minister (now means an important public official, but in earlier times meant merely servant).

(Rayevska: 72)

The term slang is extremely vague and ambiguous. There are a lot of distinctions of it but none of them is specified exactly. It is presented both as a special vocabulary and as a special language. So, in most of the dictionaries sl. (slang) is used as a convenient stylistic notation for a word or a phrase that cannot be specified more exactly.

Jargon is a recognized term for a group of words that exists in almost every language and whose aim is to preserve secrecy within a social group of people. The most well-known jargons in English are: the jargon of thieves, generally known as cant; the jargon of jazz musicians etc.

2. The practical part

2.1 Jargon construction

There are some standard methods of jargonification that became established quite early (i.e., before 1970). These include verb doubling, soundalike slang, the `-P' convention, overgeneralization, spoken inarticulations, and anthropomorphization. These methods, as well as the standard comparatives for design quality are covered below.

Of these six, verb doubling, overgeneralization, anthropomorphization, and (especially) spoken inarticulations have become quite general; but soundalike slang is still largely confined to MIT and other large universities, and the `-P' convention is found only where LISPers flourish.

Verb Doubling

A standard construction in English is to double a verb and use it as an exclamation.

E.g. «Bang, bang!» or «Quack, quack!»

Most of these are names for noises. Hackers also double verbs as a concise, sometimes sarcastic comment on what the implied subject does. Also, a doubled verb is often used to terminate a conversation, in the process remarking on the current state of affairs or what the speaker intends to do next. Typical examples involve win, lose, hack, flame, (see Glossary of Terms) culture has one *tripling* convention unrelated to this; the names of `joke' topic groups often have a tripled last element. The first and paradigmatic example was alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork.

Soundalike slang

Hackers often make rhymes or puns in order to convert an ordinary word or phrase in order to achieve a humorous effect. It is considered particularly flavorful if the phrase is bent so as to include some other jargon word. For instance, the computer hobbyist magazine «Dr. Dobb's Journal» is almost always referred to among hackers as `Dr. Frob's Journal' or simply `Dr. Frob's'. Terms of this kind that have been in fairly wide use include names for newspapers

E.g.: Boston Herald - Horrid (or Harried)

Boston Globe - Boston Glob

Houston (or San Francisco) Chronicle - the Crocknicle (or the Comical)

New York Times - New York Slime

However, the following terms are often made up on the spur of the moment. Standard examples include:

IBM 360 - IBM Three-Sickly

Government Property - Do Not Duplicate (on keys)

Government Duplicity - Do Not Propagate

for historical reasons - for hysterical raisins

Soundalike slang has been compared to the Cockney rhyming slang it has been compared to in the past (see the Glossary of Terms). They are not really similar because Cockney substitutions are opaque whereas hacker punning jargon is intentionally transparent.

The - P convention

The - P convention means turning a word into a question by adding the syllable `P'. It originated from the LISP convention of appending the letter `P' to denote a predicate. The question expects a yes/no answer.

E.g.: 1) At dinnertime:

Question: «Foodp?»

Answer: «Yeah, I'm pretty hungry.» or «T!»

2) Instead of «How are you doing?»:

Question: «State-of-the-world-P?»

Answer: (Straight) «I'm about to go home.»

Answer: (Humorous) «Yes, the world has a state.»

3) On the phone to Florida:

Question: «State-p Florida?»

Answer: «Been reading JARGON.TXT again, eh?»

Once, when Bill Gosper, a famous hacker, was at a Chinese restaurant with his friends, he wanted to know whether someone would like to share with him a two-person-sized bowl of soup. His inquiry was: «Split-p soup?» It is known to be one of the best hacks.

Generalization

A very conspicuous feature of jargon is the frequency with which techspeak items such as names of program tools, command language primitives, and even assembler codes are applied to contexts outside of computing wherever hackers find amusing analogies to them. One of the best-known examples of generalization is that Unix hackers often grep (see the Glossary of Terms) for things rather than search for them.

Hackers enjoy generalization on the grammatical level as well. They add the wrong endings to various words and them make nouns and verbs, often by extending a standard rule to non-uniform cases (or vice versa).

E.g.: porous - porosity

generous - generosity

Hackers successfully generalize:

mysterious - mysteriosity

ferrous - ferrosity

obvious => obviosity

dubious => dubiosity

Another class of common construction uses the suffix `-itude' to abstract a quality from almost any adjective or noun. This usage arises especially in cases where mainstream English would perform the same abstraction through `-iness' or `-ingness'.

E.g. win => winnitude (a common exclamation)

loss => lossitude

cruft => cruftitude

lame => lameitude

Some hackers cheerfully reverse this transformation. For example, they argue, that the horizontal degree lines on a globe ought to be called `lats' because they measure latitude!

Also, hackers noun verbs.

E.g.: «I'll mouse it up», «Hang on while I clipboard it over».

This is only a slight overgeneralization in modern English that all verbs can be nouned. In hackish, however, it is good form to mark them in some nonstandard way.

E.g.: disgust => disgustitude

hack => hackification

English as a whole is already heading in the direction towards pure-positional grammar like Chinese; hackers are simply a little ahead of the process.

However, hackers avoid the unimaginative verb-making techniques characteristic of marketroids, bean counters, and the Pentagon; a hacker would never, for example, `productize', `prioritize', or `securitize' things. Hackers have a strong aversion to bureaucratic bafflegab and regard those who use it with contempt.

Further, certain kinds of nonstandard plural forms prevail in hacker jargon. Some of these go back quite a ways; the TMRC Dictionary includes an entry which implies that the plural of `mouse' is meeces, and notes that the defined plural of `caboose' is `cabeese'. This latter has apparently been a standard joke among railroad enthusiasts for many years.

On a similarly Anglo-Saxon note, almost anything ending in `x' may form plurals in `-xen'. Even words ending in phonetic /k/ alone are sometimes treated this way.

E.g.: `soxen' for a bunch of socks.

Other funny plurals are `frobbotzim' for the plural of `frobbozz' (see frobnitz) and `Unices' and `Twenices' (rather than `Unixes' and `Twenexes'. But note that `Unixen' and `Twenexen' are never used; it has been suggested that this is because `-ix' and `-ex' are Latin singular endings that attract a Latinate plural. Finally, it has been suggested to general approval that the plural of `mongoose' ought to be `polygoose'.

The pattern here, as with other hackish grammatical quirks, is generalization of an inflectional rule that in English is either an import or a fossil (such as the Hebrew plural ending `-im', or the Anglo-Saxon plural suffix `-en') to cases where it isn't normally considered to apply. This is not `poor grammar', as hackers are generally quite well aware of what they are doing when they distort the language. It is grammatical creativity, a form of playfulness. It is done not to impress but to amuse, and never at the expense of clarity.

Spoken in articulations

Words such as `mumble', `sigh', and `groan' are spoken in places where their referent might more naturally be used. It has been suggested that this usage derives from the impossibility of representing such noises in electronic mail. Interestingly, the same sorts of constructions have been showing up with increasing frequency in comic strips. Another expression sometimes heard is «Complain!» meaning «I have a complaint!»

Anthropomorphization

Semantically, one rich source of jargon constructions is the hackish tendency to anthropomorphize hardware and software. This isn't done in a naive way; hackers do not believe that the things they work on every day are `alive' but it is common to hear of hardware or software as though it has some creatures talking to each other inside it, with intentions and desires. E.g.: «The protocol handler got confused», «Programs are trying to do smth», «A routine's goal in life is to X». One even hears explanations like»… and its poor little brain couldn't understand X, and it died». Anything with a really complex behavioral repertoire is usually thought of as `like a person' rather than `like a thing'. Thus, anthropomorphisation makes sentences easier to understand.

Comparatives

Many words in hacker jargon have to be understood as members of sets of comparatives. This is especially true of the adjectives and nouns used to describe the beauty and functional quality of code. Here is an approximately correct spectrum:

monstrosity

brain-damage

screw

bug

lose

misfeature

crock

kluge

hack

win

feature

elegance

perfection

The last is spoken of as a mythical absolute, approximated but never actually attained.

Another similar scale is used for describing the reliability of software: broken

flaky

dodgy

fragile

brittle

solid

robust

bulletproof

armor-plated

`Dodgy' is primarily Commonwealth Hackish and it is rare in the U.S.A. and may change places with `flaky' for some speakers.

Coinages for describing lossage seem to call forth the very finest in hackish linguistic inventiveness.

It has been truly said that hackers have even more words for equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people.

2.2 Hacker style

Hacker speech style

Hackish speech generally features extremely precise diction, careful word choice, a relatively large working vocabulary, and relatively little use of contractions or street slang. Dry humor, irony, puns, and a mildly flippant attitude are highly valued - but an underlying seriousness and intelligence are essential. One should use just enough jargon to communicate precisely and identify oneself as a member of the culture; overuse of jargon or a breathless, excessively gung-ho attitude is not respected.

This speech style is a variety of the precisionist English normally spoken by scientists, design engineers, and academics in technical fields. In contrast with the methods of jargon construction, it is fairly constant throughout hackerdom.

It has been observed that many hackers are confused by negative questions - or the people to whom they talk are often confused by the sense of their answers. They have done so much programming that distinguishes between if (going)… that means «If we are going» and if (! going)… that means «If we are not going» when they parse the question «Aren't you going?» it seems to be asking the opposite question from «Are you going?», and so merits an answer in the opposite sense. This confuses English-speaking non-hackers because they were taught to answer as though the negative part weren't there. In some other languages (including Russian, Chinese, and Japanese) the hackish interpretation is standard and the problem wouldn't arise. Hackers often find themselves wishing for a word like French `si' or German `doch' with which one could unambiguously answer `yes' to a negative question.

For similar reasons, English-speaking hackers almost never use double negatives, even if they live in a region where colloquial usage allows them. The thought of uttering something that logically ought to be an affirmative knowing it will be misparsed as a negative tends to disturb them.

In a related vein, hackers sometimes make a game of answering questions containing logical connectives with a strictly literal rather than colloquial interpretation. A non-hacker who is indelicate enough to ask a question like «So, are you working on finding that bug now or leaving it until later?» is likely to get the perfectly correct answer «Yes!» (that is, «Yes, I'm doing it either now or later, and you didn't ask which!»).

Hacker writing style

As it has been said, hackers often coin jargon by generalizing grammatical rules. This is one aspect of a more general fondness for form-versus-content language jokes that shows up particularly in hackish writing. Hackers claim that many people have been known to criticize hacker jargon by observing: «This sentence no verb», or «Too repetetetive», or «Bad speling», or «Incorrectspa cing.»

Similarly, intentional spoonerisms are often made of phrases relating to confusion or things that are confusing; `dain bramage' for `brain damage' is perhaps the most common (similarly, a hacker would be likely to write «Excuse me, I'm cixelsyd today», rather than «I'm dyslexic today»). This sort of thing is quite common and is enjoyed by all concerned.

Hackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses, much to the dismay of American editors. Thus, if «Jim is going» is a phrase, and so are «Bill runs» and «Spock groks», then hackers generally prefer to write: «Jim is going», «Bill runs», and «Spock groks». This is incorrect according to Standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period inside the string quotes).

Hackers tend to distinguish between `scare' quotes and `speech' quotes; that is, to use British-style single quotes for marking and reserve American-style double quotes for actual reports of speech or text included from elsewhere. Interestingly, some authorities describe this as correct general usage.

One further not standard permutation is a hackish tendency to do marking quotes by using apostrophes (single quotes) in pairs; that is, `like this'.

In the E-mail style of UNIX hackers in particular there is a tendency for usernames and the names of commands and C routines to remain uncapitalized even when they occur at the beginning of sentences. For many hackers, the case of such identifiers becomes a part of their internal representation (the `spelling').

Behind these nonstandard hackerisms there is a rule that precision of expression is more important than conformance to traditional rules; where the latter create ambiguity or lossage of information. It is notable in this respect that other hackish inventions in vocabulary tend to carry very precise shades of meaning even when constructed to appear slangy and loose.

Hackers have also developed a number of punctuation and emphasis conventions.

One of these is that TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS INTERPRETED AS `LOUD', a person that writes in this way may be asked to «stop shouting, please, you're hurting my ears!»

Also, it is common to use bracketing with unusual characters to signify emphasis. The asterisk is the most common, even though this interferes with the common use of the asterisk as a footnote mark.

E.g.: «What the hell?»

The underscore is also common, suggesting underlining. This is particularly common with book titles.

E.g.: «It is often alleged that Joe Haldeman wrote TheForeverWar as a rebuttal to Robert Heinlein's earlier novel of the future military, StarshipTroopers.».

Other forms exemplified by «=hell=», «\hell/», or «/hell/» are occasionally seen. Some hackers claim that «in the last example the first slash pushes the letters over to the right to make them italic, and the second keeps them from falling over».

Finally, words may also be emphasized L I K E T H I S, or by a series of carets (^) under them on the next line of the text.

There is a semantic difference between emphasis LIKE THIS (which emphasizes the phrase as a whole), and emphasis L I K E T H I S (which suggests the writer speaking very slowly and distinctly, as if to a very young child or a mentally impaired person). Bracketing a word with the `' character may also indicate that the writer wishes readers to consider that an action is taking place or that a sound is being made.

E.g.: `bang', `ring', `mumble'.

There is also an accepted convention for `writing under erasure'; the text «Be nice to this fool^H^H^H^Hgentleman, he's visiting from corporate HQ.» may be interpreted as «Be nice to this fool, er, gentleman…»

Crackers, phone phreaks, and warez d00dz (mostly teenagers running PC-clones from their bedrooms) have developed their own characteristic jargon, heavily influenced by skateboard lingo and underground-rock slang.

Here is a brief guide to cracker and warez d00dz usage:

Misspell frequently. The substitutions

phone => fone

freak => phreak are obligatory.

Always substitute `z's for `s's. (i.e. «codes» -> «codez»).

Type random emphasis characters after a post line (i.e. «Hey Dudes!#!$#$!#!$»).

Use the emphatic `k' prefix («k-kool», «k-rad», «k-awesome») frequently.

Abbreviate compulsively («I got lotsa warez w/ docs»).

Substitute `0' for `o' («r0dent», «l0zer»).

TYPE ALL IN CAPS LOCK, SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE YELLING ALL THE TIME.

`*' signifies multiplication but two asterisks in a row are a shorthand for exponentiation (this derives from FORTRAN). Thus, one might write 2 ** 8 = 256.

Another notation for exponentiation one sees more frequently uses the caret (^, ASCII 1011110); one might write instead `2^8 = 256'.

In on-line exchanges, hackers tend to use decimal forms or improper fractions (`3.5' or `7/2') rather than `typewriter style' mixed fractions (`3-1/2'). The major motive here is probably that the former are more readable, together with a desire to avoid the risk that the latter might be read as `three minus one-half'. The decimal form is definitely preferred for fractions with a terminating decimal representation; there may be some cultural influence here from the high status of scientific notation.

Another on-line convention, used especially for very large or very small numbers, is taken from C (which derived it from FORTRAN). This is a form of `scientific notation' using `e' to replace `*10^'; for example, one year is about 3e7 seconds long.

The tilde (~) is commonly used in a quantifying sense of `approximately'; that is, `~50' means `about fifty'.

On USENET common logical and relational operators such as `|', `&', `||', `&&', `!', `==', `!=', `>', `<', `>=', and `=<' are often combined with English. The use of prefix `!' as a loose synonym for `not- `or `no- `is particularly common; thus, `! clue' is read `no-clue' or `clueless'.

A related practice borrows syntax from preferr oday's

net volumes?

#endif /* FLAME */

I guess they figured the price premium for true

frame-based semantic analysis was too high.

Unfortunately, it's also the only workable approach.

I wouldn't recommend purchase of this product unless

you're on a very tight budget.

#include

== Frank Foonly (Fubarco Systems)

In the above, the `#ifdef' / `#endif' pair is a conditional compilation syntax from C; here, it implies that the text between should be evaluated only if you have turned on (or defined on) the switch FLAME. The `#include' at the end is C for «include standard disclaimer here»; the `standard disclaimer' is understood to read, roughly, «These are my personal opinions and not to be construed as the official position of my employer.»

The top section in the example, with > at the left margin, is an example of an inclusion convention we'll discuss below.

Hackers also mix letters and numbers more freely than in mainstream usage. In particular, it is good hackish style to write a digit sequence where you intend the reader to understand the text string that names that number in English. So, hackers prefer to write `1970s' rather than `nineteen-seventies' or `1970's' (the latter looks like a possessive).

It should also be noted that hackers exhibit much less reluctance to use multiply nested parentheses than is normal in English. Part of this is almost certainly due to influence from LISP (which uses deeply nested parentheses (like this (see?)) in its syntax a lot), but it has also been suggested that a more basic hacker trait of enjoying playing with complexity and pushing systems to their limits is in operation.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that many studies of on-line communication have shown that electronic links have a de-inhibiting effect on people. Deprived of the body-language cues through which emotional state is expressed, people tend to forget everything about other parties except what is presented over that ASCII link. This has both good and bad effects. A good one is that it encourages honesty and tends to break down hierarchical authority relationships; a bad one is that it may encourage depersonalization and gratuitous rudeness. Perhaps in response to this, experienced netters often display a sort of conscious formal politesse in their writing that has passed out of fashion in other spoken and written media (for example, the phrase «Well said, sir!» is not uncommon).

Many introverted hackers who are next to inarticulate in person communicate with considerable fluency over the net, perhaps precisely because they can forget on an unconscious level that they are dealing with people and thus don't feel stressed and anxious as they would face to face.

Though it is considered gauche to publicly criticize posters for poor spelling or grammar, the network places a premium on literacy and clarity of expression. It may well be that future historians of literature will see in it a revival of the great tradition of personal letters as art.

International style

Though the hacker-speak of other languages often uses translations of jargon from English, the local variations are interesting, and knowledge of them may be of some use to travelling hackers.

There are some variations in hacker usage as reported in the English spoken in Great Britain and the Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, India, etc. - though Canada is heavily influenced by American usage). Commonwealth hackers are more likely to pronounce transactions like «char» and «soc», etc., as spelled /char/, /sok/, as opposed to American /keir/ and /sohsh/. Dots in newsgroup names (especially two-component names tend to be pronounced more often.

E.g.: soc.wibble is /sok dot wib'l/ rather than /sohsh wib'l/.

The prefix meta may be pronounced /mee't*/; similarly, Greek letter is usually /bee't*/, zeta is usually /zee't*/, and so forth. Preferred metasyntactic variables include `eek', `ook', `frodo', and `bilbo'; `wibble', `wobble', and in emergencies `wubble', `flob', etc.

Alternatives to verb doubling include suffixes `-o-rama', `frenzy', and `city'.

E.g.: «hack-o-rama!», «core dump frenzy!», «barf city!'

Finally, the American terms for «parenthesis», «brackets», and «braces» for (), [], and {} are uncommon. Commonwealth hackish prefers «brackets», «square brackets», and «curly brackets».

Hackers in Western Europe and (especially) Scandinavia report that they often use a mixture of English and their native languages for technical conversation. Occasionally they develop idioms in their English usage that are influenced by their native-language styles. Some of these are reported here.

Hacker humor

A distinctive style of shared intellectual humor found among hackers has the following marked characteristics:

1. Fascination with form-vs.-content jokes, paradoxes, and humor having to do with confusion of. A metasyntactic variable is a variable in notation used to describe syntax, and meta-language is language used to describe language.

Metasyntactic variable is a name used in examples and understood to stand for whatever thing is under discussion, or any random member of a class of things under discussion. The word foo is the canonical example. To avoid confusion, hackers never use `foo' or other words like it as permanent names for anything. In filenames, a common convention is that any filename beginning with a metasyntactic-variable name is a scratch file that may be deleted at any time.

To some extent, the list of one's preferred metasyntactic variables is a cultural signature. They occur both in series and as singletons. Here are a few common signatures: foo, bar, baz, quux, quuux, quuuux…

Some jargon terms are also used as metasyntactic names; barf and mumble, for example.

2. Elaborate deadpan parodies of large intellectual constructs, such as standards documents, language descriptions.

3. Fascination with puns and wordplay.

2.3 Pronunciation features

Pronunciation keys provided in the Glossary of Terms are not dictionary words pronounced as in standard. Slashes bracket phonetic pronunciations, which are to be interpreted using the following conventions:

1. Syllables are hyphen-separated, except that an accent or back-accent follows accented syllable (the back-accent marks a secondary accent in some words of four or more syllables). If no accent is given, the word is pronounced with equal accentuation on all syllables (this is common for abbreviations).

1. Consonants are pronounced as in standard English:

· `g' is always hard (as in «got» rather than «giant»);

· terminal `r' (as in «hard» or «more») may be pronounced or not depending on the local dialect

· `j' is the sound that occurs twice in «judge»;

· `s' is always as in «pass», never a z sound;

· the diagraph `ch' is soft (as in «church» rather than «chemist»);

· the digraph `kh' is the guttural of «loch» or «l'chaim»;

· the digraph 'gh' is the aspirated g+h of «bughouse» or «ragheap» (this case is rare in English).

2. Uppercase letters are pronounced as their English letter names; E.g.: /H-L-L/ is equivalent to /aych el el/.

/Z/ may be pronounced /zee/ or /zed/ depending on the local dialect.

4. Vowels are represented as follows:

/a/

back, that

/ah/

father, palm

/ar/ or /a:/

far, mark

/aw/

flaw, caught

/ay/

bake, rain

/e/

less, men

/ee/

easy, ski

/eir/ or /ea/

their, software

/i/

trip, hit

/ai/

life, sky

/o/

block, stock (see note)

/oh/

flow, sew

/oo/

loot, through

/or/ or /o:/

more, door

/ow/

out, how

/oy/

boy, coin

/uh/

but, some

/u/

put, foot

/y/

yet, young

/yoo/

few, chew

The glyph /*/ is used for the `schwa' sound of unstressed or occluded vowels (the one that is often written with an upside-down `e'). The schwa vowel is omitted in syllables containing vocalic r, l, m or n; that is, `kitten' and `color' would be rendered /kit'n/ and /kuhl'r/, not /kit'*n/ and /kuhl'*r/.

The above table reflects mainly distinctions found in Standard English (that is, the neutral dialect spoken by TV network announcers and typical of educated speech). Speakers of British Received Pronunciation can smash terminal /r/ and all unstressed vowels. Speakers of many varieties of southern American will automatically change /o/ to /aw/ or /ah/, etc. Entries with a pronunciation of ` // ' are written-only usages.

Conclusion

Computerization, hacker culture, and hacker jargon are viewed here as a source of lexical, semantic-stylistic, and phonetic changes it introduces into Modern English.

Further investigation of the hacker culture influencing Modern English from the perspective.

Bibliography

1. Амосова Н.Н. Английская контекстология. Л., 1968. - 126 с.

2. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка. М., Высшая школа, 1973. - 301 с.

3. Гальперин И.Р. Очерки по стилистике английского языка. М.: Библиотека филолога, 1958. -458 с.

4. Гинзбург Р.З., Хидекель С.С., Князева Г.Ю. и Санкин А.А. Лексикология английского языка. - 2-е изд., испр. и доп. - М.: Высшая школа, 1979. - 269 с.

5. Каращук П.М. Словообразование английского языка. М., 1965.

6. Кубрякова Е.С. Что такое словообразование. М., 1965.

7. Мешков О.Д. Словообразование современного английского языка. М., 1972.

8. Мостовий М.І. Лексикологія англійської мови. Х.: Основа, 1993. - 256 с.

9. Раєвська Н.М. Лексикологія англійської мови

10. Швейцар А.Д. Литературный английский язик в США и Англии. М., 1971.

Размещено на Allbest.ru