ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1.

UNIT 1. A. SECTION 1. 1. Translate into Romanian: Word-meaning: three approaches

Among the possible ways of approaching the description and explanation of word-meaning (we shall come to sentence-meaning later in this chapter), three stand out as particularly interesting: (1) reference theory (which would express the relationship between word and entity in some terms such as word X refers to entity Y); (2) componential analysis (which would make use of an analogy from chemistry each word contains a number of atoms of meaning); and (3) meaning postulates (which would relate meaning to meaning through the conventions of set theory a tiger is a mammal, is an animal, i.e. a tiger is a kind of mammal and a mammal is a kind of animal, or animal includes mammal, includes tiger:[[[tiger] mammal] animal]. We shall look at each of these approaches in turn. Printre modalitile posibile de abordare descrierea i explicaia ale sensului cuvantului(vom face o trimitere la sensul propozitiei mai trziu n acest capitol), trei se fac remarcate deosebit de interesant: (1) teoria de referin (care ar exprima relaia dintre cuvnt i entiti in unii termeni cum ar fi "cuvantul X se refer la entitatea Y '), (2) analiza componentiala (ceea ce ar face uz de o analogie la chimie -" fiecare cuvnt conine un numr de atomi de sens "); i (3) sensul postuleaza (care ar lega sensurile intre ele via conveniile de teorie de multime - "un tigru este un mamifer, este un animal", i anume "un tigru este un fel de mamifer i un mamifer este un fel de animal" , sau "animal include mamifer, include tigru": [[[tigru] mamifer] animal]. Vom analiza fiecare dintre aceste abordri, la rndul su.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1.

Reference theory
Reference theory seeks to provide the answer to the question: What is the relationship between the phenomena observed through the senses and the words that are used to refer to those phenomena? There are now traditional and contrary answers to the question which go back to Ancient Greece: (a) the link between the word and the object to which it refers is a natural and necessary one which is determined by the structure of the universe (Platos position) or (b) the connection is an arbitrary one constrained by no more than social convention (Aristotles position). It is, unfortunately, clear that the first (naturalist) position cannot be correct, in spite of the attested existence of such (English) onomatopoeic words as cuckoo, hoot, thud, tinkle and so forth, where the word imitates the sound. There is, clearly, no simple one-to-one relationship of word to meaning to object. Teoria referentiala cauta sa faca ofere rspunsul la ntrebarea: "Care este relaia dintre fenomenele observate prin intermediul simurilor i cuvintele care sunt utilizate pentru a face referire la aceste fenomene?" Acum exista rspunsuri tradiionale i contrarii la ntrebarea pusa inca din timpul Greciei Antice: (a) legtura dintre cuvnt i "obiectul" la care se refer este unul firesc i necesar, unul care este determinat de structura universului (Poziia lui Platon) sau (b) conexiunea este una arbitrar limitat de decat de convenie social (poziia lui Aristotel). Este, din pcate, evident c prima (naturalista) poziie nu poate fi corecta, n ciuda existenei atestate unor astfel (n englez) cuvinte onomatopeice precum: cucul, huiduial, bufnitur, bate i aa mai departe, cazul n care cuvntul imit sunetul.In mod evident nu exista o relatie unu-la-unu simpla dintre cuvnt la sens la obiect. Such examples of sound symbolism are extremely rare and the overwhelming majority of words in any language demonstrate no recognizable relationship whatsoever with the object to which they refer. Hence, the conventionalist would argue, the connection between the linguistic form of the word and its referent is clearly man-made rather than natural and constitute a convenient system for labelling objects by means of arbitrarily assigned and socially accepted signs. Astfel de exemple de "simbolism sonor" sunt extrem de rare i majoritatea covritoare a cuvintelor n orice limb demonstreaza nici o relaie deductibila la care se

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. refer. Prin urmare, conventionalistul ar argumenta legtura dintre forma lingvistic a cuvntului i referentul su este facuta de om, mai degrab dect natural i constituie un sistem convenabil pentru "obiecte" de etichetare prin intermediul unor semne arbitrare atribuite i social acceptate.

Modern linguistics during the last hundred years has taken as its starting point in any discussion of meaning the conventionalist acceptance of the need for the relationship between word and object to be an indirect one mediated by a concept (an assumption which underlies our discussion of the structure of the database of the long-term memory in Chapter 7, Section 7.2). Building on this assumption, de Saussure provides a rather more explicit model of the relationship in which the link is shown to be between the linguistic sign and the object. The relative sophistication of de Saussures model is that it sees the linguistic sign itself as being composed of indivisible elements, the concept and the acoustic image, which realises it. This might be shown diagrammatically: Linguistic sign = concept / acoustic image Object

Pe parcursul ultimii sute de ani, lingvistica moderna s-a servit ca punct de plecare n orice discuie despre ceea ce nseamn acceptarea convenionalist necesitatii relaiei dintre "obiect" si cuvnt s fie una indirect mediat de un concept (o ipotez care st la baza discuiei noastre asupra structurii bazei de date a memoriei pe termen lung, n capitolul 7, seciunea 7.2). Bazndu-se pe aceast ipotez, de Saussure ofer un model destul de mult mai explicit a relaiei n care legatura este dovedita a fi ntre semnul lingvistic i "obiect".Sofisticarea relativ a modelului de Saussure este faptul c vede semnul lingvistic n sine ca fiind compus din elemente indivizibile, conceptul i imaginea acustic, care o realizeaza. Acest lucru ar putea fi ilustrat schematic: Semn lingvistic= concept/ imagine acustica Obiect An example of this, for English, might be the relationship between the word tree and the actual tree perceived by the senses which is referred to by using the word. We shall use single quotes for the word, SMALL UPPER CASE for the concept and a phonemic transcription for the acoustic image:

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. Tree = TREE / /tri: /

Un exemplu n acest sens, pentru limba englez, ar putea fi relaia dintre "copac", cuvnt i copacul real perceput prin simuri, care este menionat prin utilizarea cuvntului. Vom utiliza ghilimele simple pentru cuvntul, majuscule mici pentru concept i o transcriere fonemica pentru imaginea acustic: The value of this for us is that it suggests ways in which we can integrate linguistic models of the lexical and semantic structures of languages with psychological models of the conceptual structure of memory and thus, show parallels between the formal structures of languages and the psychological processes of perception and memory. All very well, one might say, but what of the translator? Does the translator store the same information in different parts of memory depending on the language? If so, it seems strikingly inefficient to have the same concept represented again and again, merely because its linguistic realizations are different. If not what happens to the indivisibility of the sign on which de Saussure was so insistent? Not only does this appear to be a substantial problem in relation to translation and to bilingualism but also, though to a lesser extent, in monolingual usage where lexical synonyms occur. Valoarea acestuia pentru noi este faptul c sugereaz moduri n care putem integra modele lingvistice ale structurilor lexicale i semantice ale limbilor cu modele psihologice ale structurii conceptuale a memoriei i, prin urmare, arat paralele ntre structurile formale ale limbilor i procesele psihologice de percepie i memorie. Ei foarte bine, s-ar putea spune, dar aceea ce a traductorului? Pastreaza traducatorul aceleai informaii n diferite pri ale memoriei, n funcie de limba? Dac este aa, se pare izbitor de ineficient s aib acelai concept reprezentat din nou i din nou, doar pentru c realizrile sale lingvistice sunt diferite. Dac nu, ce se ntmpl cu indivizibilitatea semnului pe care de Saussure a insistat atat? Nu numai ca acesta pare s fie o problem important n ceea ce privete traducerea i a bilingvismului, dar, de asemenea, dei ntr-o msur mai mic, n cazul n care utilizarea monolingva lexicala "sinonimele" apar.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. [ .] How extraordinary that de Saussure should have talked of an acoustic image! The way out of this is to imagine the use of some kind of coding in memory which allows us to call up the container of the concept and, with the addition of an extra digit or two which would rotate the sign so as to show the correct face to the scanning device, resolve the tip-of-the-tongue difficulty we found ourselves in. Cat de extraordinare ca de Saussure ar fi trebuit vorbeasca de o imagine acustic! Calea de ieire din acesta este s ne imaginm utilizarea unui fel de codificare n memorie, care ne permite s "apelam" container de concept i, cu adugarea unui plus sau a dou cifre care ar "roti", semnul, astfel nct ar arta faa corect a dispozitivului de scanare, rezolva dificultatii "vrfului limbii" in care ne-am gsit. The model which is no more than that and contains no more complex or farfetched an idea than that of international direct dialling (IDD), gives us some interesting clues about the way the translator (or the bilingual) recalls information from different languages from memory. Modelul care nu este mai mult dect att i nu conine complexe sau deplasate o idee decat cea de apelare internationala direct (AID), ne ofer cteva indicii interesante despre modul traductorului (sau bilingvului) de a-si reaminti informaii de la limbi diferite din memorie. However, when we compare de Saussures sign with the models of mental representation currently being developed by cognitive scientists, it does seem to lack much of the information both at the level of the concept and the acoustic image that we expect and need. We require, under concept, the kind of information provided by the encyclopedic entry and fuller lexical information under acoustic image. Cu toate acestea, atunci cnd vom compara semnul lui de Saussure cu modelele de reprezentare mental n prezent fiind dezvoltate de ctre oamenii de tiin cognitiva, se pare ca intr-adevar ii lipsesc multe din informaiile att la nivelul de "concept" cat i "imagine acustic", pe care le asteptam si ne sunt necesare . Avem nevoie de, sub "concept", un fel de informaii furnizate de intrarea enciclopedica i informaiile lexicale mai complete n temeiul "imaginii acustice".

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. It is precisely in order to supply this information that we need now to turn to the second of our two approaches to the description and explanation of meaning: componential analysis. Acesta este tocmai n scopul de a furniza aceste informaii de care avem nevoie acum s apeleze la dou dintre cele dou abordri pentru descrierea i explicarea sensului: analiza componentiala.

Componential analysis
The task of making sense of chaotic and continuous sensory data requires processes of pattern recognition and, most importantly, the segmentation of the data into discrete, codable elements. This is as true of making sense of language as it is of analysing chemical substances. For example, for the chemist, water and hydrogen peroxide share the common components H2 and O2 but differ in the amount of oxygen they contain; H2O as against H2O2 , i.e. the meaning of each depends on the components they possess and the way those components are organized. Sarcina de a avea sens a datelor haotice datelor senzoriale continue necesit procese de recunoatere a formelor i, cel mai important, segmentarea datelor n elemente discrete, elemente codabile. Acest lucru este la fel de adevrat ca si "a avea sens" a limbajului la fel cum e si analiza substanelor chimice. De exemplu pentru chimist, ap i hidrogen peroxid au componentele comune H2 i O2, dar difer n cantitatea de oxigen pe care o conin; H2O fa de H2O2, i anume "sensul" ca fiecare depinde de componentele pe care le dein i modul n care aceste componente sunt organizate.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. A very similar atomic and molecular approach to the description of wordmeaning was developed in the 1950s by anthropologists working on, among other topics, kinship systems and soon extended to other systems colour categories, plant taxonomies, diseases, etc.- and to semantics as a whole. As a theory which sought to isolate universal semantic features (features which would apply in any language) componential analysis has been a disappointment. But as a technique for describing at least part of the semantic system of particular languages, it is still worth considering particularly as a means of gaining insights into the similarities and differences between languages; insights which cannot be but of value to the translator and the language learner. It is in this spirit, viewing componential analysis as a technique rather than theory, that we shall outline it below. O abordare foarte asemanatoare "atomica" i "moleculara"a descrierii sensuluicuvntului a fost dezvoltata n anii 1950 de ctre antropologii care lucrau, printre alte subiecte, la sisteme de rudenie i n curnd s-a extins la alte sisteme - categorii de culori, taxonomii de plante, boli, etc - i la semantica ca un ntreg. Dar, ca o teorie care cauta sa izoleze universul trasaturilor semantice( trasaturi care ar putea fi aplicabile in orice limba) analiza componentiala s-a dovedid a fi o dezamagire. Dar ca o tehnica pentru descrierea cel puin a sistemului semantic ale limbilor particulare, inca se merita luand in vedere ca special ca un mijloc de a obine perspective n asemnrile i deosebirile dintre limbi, intuiii, care nu pot fi, dar de valoare traductor i limba cursant. The essential assumption of componential analysis is that the meaning of a word is the sum of a number of elements of meaning which possess semantic distinctive features and that these elements are binary; i.e. marked as present or absent (+ or - ). Ipoteza esenial a analizei componentiale este c sensul unui cuvnt este suma a unei serii de elemente de sens, care posed - caracteristici semantice distinctive - i c aceste elemente sunt binare, adic marcate ca fiind prezente sau absente (+ sau -). We might take, as an example, a set of English words such as man, woman, boy, girl and show how a componential analysis can be used to specify the lexical entry for each, limited (for the time being) to semantic features which create dictionary-like listings.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. First of all, it is clear that the four words (or, more correctly, the four concepts they realize) do, indeed, form a set of items. They share the characteristic or feature human. Man and woman share the feature adult and man shares with boy the feature male. For this set, these three features are sufficient to create definitions for each which distinguish them unambiguously: man = human, adult, male, etc. the lexical entries would be: man [+ human, + adult, + male], woman [+ human, + adult, - male], boy [+ human, - adult, + male], girl [+ human, - adult, - male]. n primul rnd, este clar c cele patru cuvinte (sau, mai corect, cele patru concepte pe care le realizeaz) ntr-adevr formeaz un set de elemente. Ele mprtesc caracteristica sau trstur uman. Brbatul i femeia impartasesc caracteristica adult, pe cand barbat si baiat caracteristica masculin. Pentru acest set, aceste trei caracteristici sunt suficiente pentru a crea definiii pentru fiecare care le distinge n mod clar: omul = 'omenesc, adult, masculin ", etc intrrile lexicale ar fi: om [+ uman, + adult, masculin +], femeie [+ uman, + adult, - masculin], biat [+ uman, - pentru aduli, de sex masculin +], fata [+ uman, - de sex masculin - adult,]. However, a fuller entry for the item would include: (a) its pronunciation (and if the language has an orthography, its written form as well); (b) syntactic information the form class to which it belongs (noun, verb, etc.), whether it is countable if it is a noun or transitive if it is a verb, etc.; (c) any significant morphological information, e.g. if it has any irregular forms; and (d) its semantic sense; a specification of its conceptual content. Filled out in this way, each entry would include both elements of de Saussures linguistic sign acoustic image and concept and, in addition, syntactic information which would be essential if the word were to be involved in the creation of sentences and used for communication. Cu toate acestea, o intrare complet pentru articol ar include: (a) pronunia sa (i dac limbajul are o ortografie, de asemenea si forma sa scrisa); (b) informaii sintactice clasa de forme de care aparine (substantiv, verb, etc), dac este numrabil dac este un substantiv sau tranzitiv n cazul n care este un verb, etc; (c) orice informaii morfologice importante, de exemplu, n cazul n care are orice "neregulat", formele; i (d) sensul su semantic, o specificare a coninutului su conceptual. Completate n acest mod, fiecare intrare ar include ambele elemente ale semnului lingvistic lui de Saussure - imaginea

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. acustic i conceptul - i, n plus, informaiile sintactice care ar fi eseniale n cazul n care cuvntul ar fi implicate n crearea de propoziii i utilizate pentru comunicare . Modified in this way, the entry for man might be as follows: man [/mn/ man noun + count plural = /men/ +human + adult + male]. Modificat n acest fel, intrarea pentru om ar putea fi, dup cum urmeaz: omul [/ Maen / f 'om' + plural = numrul de oameni / / + + uman adult + masculin]. How much phonological and syntactic information should be included in each lexical entry? In psychological terms, if the database is to provide enough information for the production and comprehension of grammatical sentences, each conceptual address will have to provide adequate information on the pronunciation, grammatical features and meaning of the item stored there. What, though, is adequate? Part of the answer to this lies in the structure of the language in question. Ct de multe informaii fonologice i sintactice ar trebui s fie incluse n fiecare intrare lexical? n termeni psihologici, dac baza de date este de a furniza suficiente informaii pentru producerea i nelegerea de propoziii gramaticale, fiecare adres conceptual va trebui s furnizeze informaii adecvate privind pronunia, caracteristicile gramaticale i sensul articolului stocate acolo. Si totusi care este cea adecvata? O parte din rspunsul la aceast const n structura limbii n cauz. In the first case (pronunciation), suprasegmental information will need to be included in addition to segmental (i.e. vowels and consonants) in languages where word stress is variable in polysyllabic words (e.g. English /permit/ [noun] versus /permit/ [verb] or Italian /porto/ I carry [present tense] versus /porto/ I carried [past tense]. n primul caz (pronunia), informaiile suprasegmentale vor trebui s fie incluse n plus fa de segmentara (de exemplu, vocalele i consoanele), n limbile n care accentul pe cuvant e variabil n cuvinte polisilabice (de exemplu, n englez / "autorizaie / [n] versus / per'mit Porto / [verb] sau italian / '/ I transporta [timpul prezent] versus / por'to / I efectuate [timpul trecut]. In the second (grammatical class), a number of distinctions would have to be included such as (1) abstract versus concrete, countable versus non-countable, gradeable versus non-gradeable for English, as would (2) grammatical gender for languages such as

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. French and German and (3) morphological information for agglutinative or flexional languages such as Turkish and Arabic respectively. n cel de-al doilea caza (clasa gramatical), un numr de distincii ar trebui s fie incluse, cum ar fi (1) abstract versus concret, numrabil versus non-numrabile, gradeable versus non-gradeable pentru limba englez, cum ar fi (2) gen gramatical pentru astfel de limbi ca franceza i germana i (3) informaii morfologice pentru limbile aglutinante sau flexionare, cum ar fi turca i araba, respectiv. In the third (meaning), it is not only denotative but also connotative meaning that needs to be stored, presumably as part of the individuals encyclopedic knowledge and mainly in the conceptual memory (the distinction is made between conceptual and episodic memory in Chapter 7, Section 7.3.1). Suffice it to say that somewhere and somehow in long-term memory there must be a system which allows lexical items to interact with each other, with the grammatical resources of the language and with encyclopedic knowledge, otherwise, the communicator would have no means of producing or understanding grammatical sentences or appropriate utterances and we all, clearly, do both on a vast scale. n al treilea (sensul), acesta nu este doar denotativ, ci, de asemenea, sensul conotativ, care trebuie s fie stocate, probabil ca parte a cunotinelor enciclopedice ale individului i n principal n memoria conceptual (se face distincie ntre memorie conceptual i episodica n capitolul 7, Seciunea 7.3.1). Este suficient s spunem c undeva i cumva n memoria pe termen lung trebuie s existe un sistem care permite elementelor lexicale s interacioneze unele cu altele, cu resursele gramaticale ale limbii i cu cunotine enciclopedice, n caz contrar, comunicatorul nu ar avea nici un mijloc de producere sau de nelegere a propozitiilor gramaticale sau enunurile adecvate i noi toi, n mod clar, le facem pe toate la scala mare. From the translators point of view, componential analysis has considerable attractions as a practical technique even if, as we shall see below, it suffers from a number of defects as a theory.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. Din punctul de vedere al traductorului, analiza componentiala are atractii considerabile, ca o tehnica de practic, chiar dac, dup cum vom vedea mai jos, ea sufer de o serie de defecte ca teorie. Consider the problem of lack of fit between the lexical items of two languages; an issue which continually faces the translator. Take the difficulty of translating the German noun Uhr. Without help from the context, the translator cannot know whether the appropriate English equivalent is watch or clock or, even, hour or time (die Uhr ist= The time is). Further, if the translation is into French, terms for no less than three kinds of time-keeping devices are available montre (watch), horloge and pendule (both of which are equivalent to clock) plus the translation heure, as in quelle heure est-il? (what time is it?). Clearly, the lexical entry for Uhr does not contain size as a significant component as it must in English to distinguish horloge from pendule. Luai n considerare problema lipsei de compatibilitate ntre elementele lexicale a dou limbi; o problem cu care se confrunt continuu traductorul. Ia dificultatea de a traduce substantivul german Uhr. Fr ajutor din context, traductorul nu poate ti dac echivalentul corespunztor n limba englez este ceas sau ceas, sau, chiar, or sau de timp (mori Uhr ist ... = Ora este ...). n plus, n cazul n care traducerea in franceza, termeni care pentru nu mai puin de trei tipuri de timp de meninere dispozitive sunt disponibile - CH (ceas), Horloge i pendula (ambele din care sunt echivalente cu "ceas") - plus heure traducere, astfel cum n Quelle heure est-il? ("Ce e ora e?"). n mod evident, intrarea lexical pentru Uhr nu conine "dimensiunea" ca o component semnificativ, astfel cum aceasta trebuie s se fac distincia n limba englez dintre horloge si pendula.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. There are two major problems with componential analysis, both of which reduce its usefulness: (1) that the features proposed for any item are arbitrary not in itself necessarily a problem and, hence, what may be criterial for one user may turn out to be trivial or secondary for another and (2) the binary nature of the features (possession or non-possession). This limits the application of the analysis to items which are clearly distinguishable in such terms and makes it difficult to create satisfactory lexical entries for several categories of item. Those which: (1) belong to multiple rather than binary taxonomies metals, for example: gold, silver, tin, copper, lead (2) are in hierarchical relationships with each other measuring scales, for example: inch, foot, yard (3) overlap house, home, dwelling-place or share and divide; (4) relate to each other by reference to some assumed norm short and tall or hot and cold. Exist dou probleme majore cu analiza componentiala, ambele care reduc utilitatea sa: (1) cci caracteristicile propuse pentru orice element sunt arbitrare - nu este n sine neaprat o problem - i, prin urmare, ceea ce ar putea fi criterial pentru un utilizator se poate dovedi a fi banal sau secundare pentru altul i (2) natura binar dintre caracteristicile de posesie (sau non-posesie). Acest lucru limiteaz aplicarea analizei la elementele care sunt n mod clar disting n astfel de termeni i face dificil pentru a crea intrri lexicale satisfctoare pentru mai multe categorii de produs. Cei care: (1) fac parte din mai multe taxonomii, mai degrab dect binare - metale, de exemplu: aur, metri, argint, staniu, curte cupru, plumb ... ... (2) sunt n relaii ierarhice reciproce - masurarea dimensiunilor, de exemplu: inch, (3) se suprapun - casa, locuinta, locuinta, locul sau de actiune si divizare; (4) se refer reciproc prin referire la unele norme asumate - scurt i nalt sau la cald i la rece. For the translator, each of these is (potentially, at least) significant. Do users of both languages, for example, categorize the same metals as precious? How do they perceive units of measurement or distinguish house from home? What norms do they use?

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. Pentru traductor, fiecare dintre acestea este ( cel puin potential) semnificativ. Oare utilizatorii ambelor limbi, de exemplu, clasifica aceleasi metalele cu "preioase"? Cum percep acestia unitile de msur sau cum disting ei casa de la domiciliu? Ce norme folosesc?

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. HUMANITIES. UNIT 1. A. LINGUISTICS.SECTION 1. Home assignment Focus on Words 1. Give two different ways of pronouncing the following words; use each of them in two different examples to show their meanings: associate, candidate, estimate, advocate, postulate 1.a .. b.. 2.a.. b 3.a.. b.. 4.a.. b. 5.a.. b. 2.1. What is the common feature of the following pairs of words? process to process, progress to progress, produce to produce, refuse to refuse 2.2. Give two examples of sentences to distinguish each element of a(ny) of the above pairs. . . 3. Use a good dictionary to give the full explanation for the following words: relate, relation, relationship; apply, application, applicant 4. Distinguish between apply to and apply for, in two sentences of your own. Apply to: . Apply for: 5. In two sentences characterize the suffix ist (in terms of productivity):