1. Терских Елена и Кокорева Ксения, 3 курс, 2я англ. группа

2.  Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing.linguistic prescriptioneducation  Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as a presentation of the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics.  Prescription and description are complementary, but have different priorities and sometimes are seen to be in conflict.

3.  Phonology (and its theoretical developments, such as the phoneme) deals with the function and interpretation of sound in language. Phonology phoneme  Syntax has developed to describe the rules concerning how words relate to each other in order to form sentences. Syntax  Lexicology collects "words" and their derivations and transformations: it has not given rise to much generalized theory. Lexicology

4.  A description of the phonology of the language in question.phonology  A description of the morphology of words belonging to that language.morphology  A description of the syntax of well-formed sentences of that language.syntax  A description of lexical derivations.  A documentation of the vocabulary, including at least one thousand entries.vocabulary  A reproduction of a few genuine texts.

5.  When studying morphemes, we should distinguish morphemes as generalized lingual units from their concrete manifestations, or variants in specific textual environments; variants of morphemes are called “allo- morphs”.  The so-called allo-emic theory was developed in phonetics: in phonetics, phonemes, as the generalized, invariant phonological units, are distinguished from their concrete realizations, the allophones.

6.  The “allo-emic theory” in the study of morphemes was also developed within the framework of Descriptive Linguistics by means of the so-called distributional analysis.  The following three types of distribution are established: contrastive distribution, non-contrastive distribution and complementary distribution.

7.  The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if they express different meanings in identical environments the compared morphs  The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive distribution if they express identical meaning in identical environments; such morphs constitute ‘free variants’ of the same morpheme  The morphs are said to be in complementary distribution if they express identical meanings in different environments

8.  In Descriptive Linguistics distributional morpheme types are distinguished; they immediately correlate with each other in the following pairs.  Free morphemes, which can build up words by themselves, are opposed to bound morphemes, used only as parts of words; e.g.: in the word ‘hands’ hand- is a free morpheme and -s is a bound morpheme.  Overt and covert morphemes are opposed to each other: the latter shows the meaningful absence of a morpheme distinguished in the opposition of grammatical forms in paradigms; it is also known as the “zero morpheme”.

9.  Full or meaningful morphemes are opposed to empty morphemes, which have no meaning and are left after singling out the meaningful morphemes  Segmental morphemes, consisting of phonemes, are opposed to supra-segmental morphemes, which leave the phonemic content of the word unchanged, but the meaning of the word is specified with the help of various supra-segmental lingual units

10.  Additive morphemes, which are freely combined in a word, e.g.: look+ed, small+er, are opposed to replacive morphemes, or root morphemes, which replace each other in paradigms, e.g.: sing -sang – sung.  Continuous morphemes, combined with each other in the same word, e.g.: worked, are opposed to discontinuous morphemes, which consist of two components used jointly to build the analytical forms of the words, e.g.: have worked, is working.

11.  M.Y.Blokh “A Course in Theoretical English grammar”  B.Ilyish “The structure of modern English”