Free word combinations and phraseological units

PHRASEOLOGICAL
UNITS, FREE WORD GROUPS (PHRASES), COMPOUND WORDS.

Phraseological
units occupy an intermediate position between free word combinations
and compound words. On the one hand, they are combinations of words
and lack external inseparability. On the other hand, they are
semantically integral and function as words.

A
free word combination does not exist in language as a ready-made
unit: it is created in the process of speech, a big house (adj. +
noun), to read books (verb + noun), on the table (prep. + noun),
etc.

Its
meaning is derived from the meanings of words that make it up. In
speech language-units are combined according to the structural
patterns of the English language.

The
freedom we speak of is the freedom or choice of the lexical units to
fit into a given structural pattern. We can say big
house or small
house or big
man or big
bag etc.
The freedom here is relative depending upon logical
factors (to
read apples is illogical, a laughing triangle does not make sense
logically, etc.) and linguistic
factors (traditionally
we say to do one’s job and not to make one’s job; grammatically
adverbs do not combine with nouns or numerals with prepositions;
stylistscally some words are incompatible).

A
compound word is
grammatically and semantically inseparable and exists in the language
as a ready-made unit reproducible in speech (unless it is a
«potential» word).

A
phraseological unit is
also reproduced in speech as a ready-made unit. There is no freedom
in the choice of the component lexical units.

Its
meaning may be described as idiomatic because the meaning of the
whole is not equal to the sum of the meanings of words which compose
it.

A
phraseological unit functions as a single syntactic unit irrespective
of the number of words of which it consists (e.g. to take in, to make
up, to go to bed, are verb-equivalents and have the syntactical
functions of verbs; best man, first night, red tape, black ball are
noun-equivalents and have the syntactical functions of nouns).

Set
expressions have sometimes been called «word equivalents», and it
has been postulated by A.I. Smirnitsky that the vocabulary of a
language consists of words and word equivalents (word-groups),
similar to words in so far as they are not created in speech but
introduced into the act of communication ready-made.

Thus,
phraseological units are word-equivalents and as such are part of the
vocabulary of the English language.

The
boundaries between free combinations of words and phraseological
units are not always clearly marked.

Phaseological
units are primarily characterized by the contradiction which exists
between the semantic integrity of the whole and the formal
independence of its parts.

But
this independence is formal because, owing to the loss of its
semantic independence, an element of a phraseological unit cannot be
regarded as a word of full value, of full standard nature.

The
phraseological unit is a word-equivalent, its components may be
regarded as morpheme equivalents.

To
sum up, there are free combinations of words, compound words and
word-equivalents (phraseological units) which occupy an intermediate
position.

Word-equivalents
are distinguished from free combinations of words by their semantic
isolation. It follows, from this semantic isolation that the meaning
of the whole dominates over and suppresses the meanings of the
components of this word equivalent.

Thus
we may say that although a word-equivalent retains formal identity
with the syntactic pattern of a free combination of words it is
semantically isolated and idiomatic.

Word-equivalents
are distinguished from compound words by their formal structure which
does not differ from free combinations and by their idiomatic
character. The majority of compound words are not idiomatic.

Their
main characteristic feature lies in their inseparability or
structural cohesion, idiomatic character being a complementary
feature. In contrast to compound nouns the idiomatic character of
phraseological units is their chief distinguishing feature.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

Источник

Free word groups and phraseological units

A word-group is the largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more than one word but expressing one global concept.

The lexical meaning of the word groups is the combined lexical meaning of the component words. The meaning of the word groups is motivated by the meanings of the component members and is supported by the structural pattern. But it’s not a mere sum total of all these meanings! Polysemantic words are used in word groups only in 1 of their meanings. These meanings of the component words in such word groups are mutually interdependent and inseparable (blind man – «a human being unable to see», blind type – «the copy isn’t readable).

Word groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. The structural pattern of word groups is the carrier of a certain semantic component not necessarily dependent on the actual lexical meaning of its members (school grammar – «grammar which is taught in school», grammar school – «a type of school»). We have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of word groups as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.

It is often argued that the meaning of word groups is also dependent on some extra-linguistic factors – on the situation in which word groups are habitually used by native speakers.

Words put together to form lexical units make phrases or word-groups. One must recall that lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups.

The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary. Some word-groups, e.g. at least, point of view, by means, to take place, etc. seem to be functionally and semantically inseparable. They are usually described as set phrases, word-equivalents or phraseological units and are studied by the branch of lexicology which is known as phraseology. In other word-groups such as to take lessons, kind to people, a week ago, the component-members seem to possess greater semantic and structural independence. Word-groups of this type are defined as free word-groups or phrases and are studied in syntax.

Before discussing phraseology it is necessary to outline the features common to various word-groups irrespective of the degree of structural and semantic cohesion of the component-words.

There are two factors which are important in uniting words into word-groups:

– the lexical valency of words;

– the grammatical valency of words.

Lexical valency

Words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combinations with other words. E.g. the noun question is often combined with such adjectives as vital, pressing, urgent, delicate, etc.

The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency. The range of the lexical valency of words is delimited by the inner structure of the English words. Thus, to raise and to lift are synonyms, but only the former is collocated with the noun question. The verbs to take, to catch, to seize, to grasp are synonyms, but they are found in different collocations:

to take – exams, measures, precautions, etc.;

to grasp – the truth, the meaning.

Words habitually collocated in speech tend to form a cliche.

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical, because as it was said before, it depends on the inner structure of the vocabulary of the language. Both the English flower and the Russian цветок may be combined with a number of similar words, e.g. garden flowers, hot house flowers (cf. the Russian – садовые цветы, оранжерейные цветы), but in English flower cannot be combined with the word room, while in Russian we say комнатные цветы (in English we say pot-flowers).

Words are also used in grammatical contexts. The minimal grammatical context in which the words are used to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-group. E.g., the adjective heavy can be followed by a noun (A+N) – heavy food, heavy storm, heavy box, heavy eater. But we cannot say «heavy cheese» or «heavy to lift, to carry», etc.

The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactical) structures is termed grammatical valency.

The grammatical valency of words may be different. The grammatical valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. E.g., no English adjective can be followed by the finite form of a verb.

Then, the grammatical valency is also delimited by the inner structure of the language. E.g., to suggest, to propose are synonyms. Both can be followed by a noun, but only to propose can be followed by the infinitive of a verb – to propose to do something.

Clever and intelligent have the same grammatical valency, but only clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern A+prep+N – clever at maths.

Structurally word-groups can be considered in different ways. Word-groups may be described as for the order and arrangement of the component-members. E.g., the word-group to read a book can be classified as a verbal-nominal group, to look at smb. – as a verbal-prepositional-nominal group, etc.

By the criterion of distribution all word-groups may be divided into two big classes: according to their head-words and according to their syntactical patterns.

Word-groups may be classified according to their head-words into:

nominal groups – red flower;

adjective groups – kind to people;

verbal groups – to speak well.

The head is not necessarily the component that occurs first.

Word-groups are classified according to their syntactical pattern into predicative and non-predicative groups. Such word-groups as he went, Bob walks that have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence are termed as predicative, all others are non-predicative ones.

Non-predicative word-groups are divided into subordinative and coordinative depending on the type of syntactic relations between the components. E.g., a red flower, a man of freedom are subordinative non-predicative word-groups, red and freedom being dependent words, while day and night, do and die are coordinative non-predicative word-groups.

The lexical meaning of a word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component members. But it should be pointed out, however, that the term «combined lexical meaning» does not imply that the meaning of the word-group is always a simple additive result of all the lexical meanings of the component words. As a rule, the meanings of the component words are mutually dependent and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the lexical meaning of the components. The interdependence is well seen in word-groups made up of polysemantic words. E.g., in the phrases the blind man, the blind type the word blind has different meanings – unable to see and vague.

So we see that polysemantic words are used in word-groups only in one of their meanings.

The term motivation is used to denote the relationship existing between the phonemic or morphemic composition and structural pattern of the word on the one hand and its meaning on the other.

There are three main types of motivation:

1) phonetical

2) morphological

3) semantic

1. Phonetical motivation is used when there is a certain similarity between the sounds that make up the word. For example: buzz, cuckoo, gigle. The sounds of a word are imitative of sounds in nature, or smth that produces a characteristic sound. This type of motivation is determined by the phonological system of each language.

2. Morphological motivation – the relationship between morphemic structure and meaning. The main criterion in morphological motivation is the relationship between morphemes. One-morphemed words are non-motivated. Ex – means «former» when we talk about humans ex-wife, ex-president. Re – means «again»: rebuild, rewrite. In borowed words motivation is faded: «expect, export, recover (get better)». Morphological motivation is especially obvious in newly coined words, or in the words created in this century. In older words motivation is established etymologically.

The structure-pattern of the word is very important too: «finger-ring» and «ring-finger». Though combined lexical meaning is the same. The difference of meaning can be explained by the arrangement of the components.

Morphological motivation has some irregularities: «smoker» – si not «the one who smokes», it is «a railway car in which passenger may smoke».

The degree of motivation can be different:

«endless» is completely motivated

«cranberry» is partially motivated: morpheme «cran-» has no lexical meaning.

3. Semantic motivation is based on the co-existence of direct and figurative meanings of the same word within the same synchronous system. «Mouth» denotes a part of the human face and at the same time it can be applied to any opening: «the mouth of a river». «Ermine» is not only the anme of a small animal, but also a fur. In their direct meaning «mouth» and «ermine» are not motivated.

In compound words it is morphological motivation when the meaning of the whole word is based on direct meanings of its components and semantic motivation is when combination of components is used figuratively. For example «headache» is «pain in the head» (morphological) and «smth. annoying» (sematic).

When the connection between the meaning of the word and its form is conventional (there is no perceptible reason for the word having this phonemic and morphemic composition) the word is non-motivated (for the present state of language development). Words that seem non-motivated now may have lost their motivation: «earn» is derived from «earnian – to harvest», but now this word is non-motivated.

As to compounds, their motivation is morphological if the meaning of the whole is based on the direct meaning of the components, and semantic if the combination is used figuratively: watchdog – a dog kept for watching property (morphologically motivated); – a watchful human guardian (semantically motivated).

Every vocabulary is in a state of constant development. Words that seem non-motivated at present may have lost their motivation. When some people recognize the motivation, whereas others do not, motivation is said to be faded.

Semantically all word-groups may be classified into motivated and non-motivated. Non-motivated word-groups are usually described as phraseological units or idioms.

Word-groups may be described as lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the groups is based on the meaning of their components. Thus take lessons is motivated; take place – ‘occur’ is lexically non-motivated.

Word-groups are said to be structurally motivated if the meaning of the pattern is deduced from the order and arrangement of the member-words of the group. Red flower is motivated as the meaning of the pattern quality – substance can be deduced from the order and arrangement of the words red and flower, whereas the seemingly identical pattern red tape (‘official bureaucratic methods’) cannot be interpreted as quality – substance.

Seemingly identical word-groups are sometimes found to be motivated or non-motivated depending on their semantic interpretation. Thus apple sauce, e.g., is lexically and structurally motivated when it means ‘a sauce made of apples’ but when used to denote ‘nonsense’ it is clearly non-motivated

Word-groups like words may be also analyzed from the point of view of their motivation. Word-groups may be called as lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the meaning of the components. All free phrases are completely motivated.

It follows from the above discussion that word-groups may be also classified into motivated and non-motivated units. Non-motivated word-groups are habitually described as phraseological units or idioms.

Investigations of English phraseology began not long ago. English and American linguists as a rule are busy collecting different words, word-groups and sentences which are interesting from the point of view of their origin, style, usage or some other features. All these units are habitually described as «idioms», but no attempt has been made to describe these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.

Difference in terminology («set-phrases», «idioms» and «word-equivalents») reflects certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish types of phraseological units and free word-groups. The term «set phrase» implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups.

There is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed «phraseological units». The habitual terms «set-phrases», «idioms», «word-equivalents» are sometimes treated differently by different linguists. However these terms reflect to certain extend the main debatable points of phraseology which centre in the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups.

The term «set expression» implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups.

The term «word-equivalent» stresses not only semantic but also functional inseparability of certain word-groups, their aptness to function in speech as single words.

The term «idioms» generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. Uriel Weinreich expresses his view that an idiom is a complex phrase, the meaning of which cannot be derived from the meanings of its elements. He developed a more truthful supposition, claiming that an idiom is a subset of a phraseological unit. Ray Jackendoff and Charles Fillmore offered a fairly broad definition of the idiom, which, in Fillmore’s words, reads as follows: «…an idiomatic expression or construction is something a language user could fail to know while knowing everything else in the language». Chafe also lists four features of idioms that make them anomalies in the traditional language unit paradigm: non-compositionality, transformational defectiveness, ungrammaticality and frequency asymmetry.

Great work in this field has been done by the outstanding Russian linguist A. Shakhmatov in his work «Syntax». This work was continued by Acad. V.V. Vinogradov. Great investigations of English phraseology were done by Prof. A. Cunin, I. Arnold and others.

Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units; the other essential feature of phraseological units is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure.

Unlike components of free word-groups which may vary according to the needs of communication, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations. E.g., in a red flower (a free phrase) the adjective red may be substituted by another adjective denoting colour, and the word-group will retain the meaning: «the flower of a certain colour».

In the phraseological unit red tape (bürokratik metodlar) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the adjective would cause a complete change in the meaning of the group: it would then mean «tape of a certain colour». It follows that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components, and that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow any change of its lexical components and its grammatical structure.

Grammatical structure of phraseological units is to a certain degree also stable:

red tape – a phraseological unit;

red tapes – a free word-group;

to go to bed – a phraseological unit;

to go to the bed – a free word-group.

Still the basic criterion is comparative lack of motivation, or idiomaticity of the phraseological units. Semantic motivation is based on the coexistence of direct and figurative meaning.

Taking into consideration mainly the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units may be classified into three big groups. This classification was first suggested by Acad. V.V. Vinogradov. These groups are:

– phraseological fusions,

– phraseological unities,

– phraseological collocations, or habitual collocations.

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups. Themeaning of the components has no connection at least synchronically with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion.

Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated word-groups as their meaning can usually be understood through (deduced from) the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit.

Phraseological unities are usually marked by a comparatively high degree of stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure. Phraseological unities can have homonymous free phrases, used in direct meanings.

§ to skate on thin ice – to skate on thin ice (to risk);

§ to wash one’s hands off dirt – to wash one’s hands off (to withdraw from participance);

§ to play the first role in the theatre – to play the first role (to dominate).

There must be not less than two notional wordsin metaphorical meanings.

Phraseological collocations are partially motivated but they are made up of words having special lexical valency which is marked by a certain degree of stability in such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of components is strictly limited. They differ from phraseological unities by the fact that one of the components in them is used in its direct meaning, the other – in indirect meaning, and the meaning of the whole group dominates over the meaning of its components. As figurativeness is expressed only in one component of the phrase it is hardly felt.

§ to pay a visit, tribute, attention, respect;

§ to break a promise, a rule, news, silence;

§ to meet demands, requirement, necessity;

§ to set free; to set at liberty;

§ to make money, journey;

§ to fall ill.

The structure V + N (дополнение) is the largest group of phraseological collocations.

Phraseological units may be defined as specific word-groups functioning as word-equivalents; they are equivalent to definite classes of words. The part-of-speech meaning of phraseological units is felt as belonging to the word-group as a whole irrespective of the part-of-speech meaning of component words. Comparing a free word-group, e.g. a long day and a phraseological unit, e.g. in the long run, we observe that in the free word-group the noun day and the adjective long preserve the part-of-speech meaning proper to these words taken in isolation. The whole group is viewed as composed of two independent units (A + N). In the phraseological unit in the long run the part-of-speech meaning belongs to the group as a single whole. In the long run is grammatically equivalent to single adverbs, e.g. finally, firstly, etc.

So, phraseological units are included into the system of parts of speech.

Phraseological units are created from free word-groups. But in the course of time some words – constituents of phraseological units may drop out of the language; the situation in which the phraseological unit was formed can be forgotten, motivation can be lost and these phrases become phraseological fusions.

The vocabulary of a language is enriched not only by words, but also by phraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be made in the process of speech, they exist in the language as ready-made units. They are compiled in special dictionaries. The same as words phraseological units express a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call such units «idioms». We can mention such dictionaries as: L. Smith «Words and Idioms», V. Collins «A Book of English Idioms» etc. In these dictionaries we can find words, peculiar in their semantics (idiomatic), side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, into different semantic groups.

Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning.

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

Among two-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following structural types:

a) attributive-nominal such as: a month of Sundays, grey matter, a millstone round one’s neck and many others. Units of this type are noun equivalents and can be partly or perfectly idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units (phrasisms) sometimes the first component is idiomatic, e.g. high road, in other cases the second component is idiomatic, e.g. first night. In many cases both components are idiomatic, e.g. red tape, blind alley, bed of nail, shot in the arm and many others.

b) verb-nominal phraseological units, e.g. to read between the lines, to speak BBC, to sweep under the carpet etc. The grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre in many cases is the nominal component, e.g. to fall in love. In some units the verb is both the grammar and the semantic centre, e.g. not to know the ropes. These units can be perfectly idiomatic as well, e.g. to burn one’s boats, to vote with one’s feet, to take to the cleaners’ etc.

Very close to such units are word-groups of the type to have a glance, to have a smoke. These units are not idiomatic and are treated in grammar as a special syntactical combination, a kind of aspect.

c) phraseological repetitions, such as: now or never, part and parcel, country and western etc. Such units can be built on antonyms, e.g. ups and downs, back and forth; often they are formed by means of alliteration, e.g cakes and ale, as busy as a bee. Components in repetitions are joined by means of conjunctions. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar centre. They can also be partly or perfectly idiomatic, e.g. cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter (perfectly).

Phraseological units the same as compound words can have more than two tops (stems in compound words), e.g. to take a back seat, a peg to hang a thing on, lock, stock and barrel, to be a shadow of one’s own self, at one’s own sweet will.

Phraseological units can be classified as parts of speech. This classification was suggested by I.V. Arnold. Here we have the following groups:

a) noun phraseologisms denoting an object, a person, a living being, e.g. bullet train, latchkey child, redbrick university, Green Berets,

b) verb phraseologisms denoting an action, a state, a feeling, e.g. to break the log-jam, to get on somebody’s coattails, to be on the beam, to nose out, to make headlines,

c) adjective phraseologisms denoting a quality, e.g. loose as a goose, dull as lead

d) adverb phraseological units, such as: with a bump, in the soup, like a dream, like a dog with two tails,

e) preposition phraseological units, e.g. in the course of, on the stroke of,

f) interjection phraseological units, e.g. «Catch me!», «Well, I never!» etc.

In I.V. Arnold’s classification there are also sentence equivalents, proverbs, sayings and quotations, e.g. «The sky is the limit», «What makes him tick», «I am easy». Proverbs are usually metaphorical, e.g. «Too many cooks spoil the broth», while sayings are as a rule non-metaphorical, e.g. «Where there is a will there is a way».

Теги:
Free word groups. Phraseological units
Контрольная работа
Английский
Просмотров: 27098
Найти в Wikkipedia статьи с фразой: Free word groups. Phraseological units

Источник

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

Free Word-groups and Phraseological units

Done by: Ivanova Ksenija

Group: 701(2)

Ishim, 2013

Content

Introduction________________________________________Page№3
Phraseological Units and word-groups___________________Page№4
Classification of Phraseological units____________________Page№6
The etymological classification of phraseological units____________Page№8
How to Distinguish Phraseological Units

from Free Word-Groups___________________________________Page№9

Сonclusion_________________________________________Page№11
Bibliography_______________________________________Page№12

Introduction

Phraseology is a scholarly approach to language which developed in the twentieth century [1]. It took its start when Charles Bally’s notion of locutions phraseologiques entered Russian lexicologyand lexicography in the 1930s and 1940s and was subsequently developed in the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. From the late 1960s on it established itself in (East) German linguistics but was also sporadically approached in English linguistics. The earliest English adaptations of phraseology are by Weinreich (1969) within the approach of transformational grammar), Arnold (1973), and Lipka (1992) [2].

In Great Britain as well as other Western European countries, phraseology has steadily been developed over the last twenty years. The activities of the European Society of Phraseology and the European Association for Lexicography with their regular conventions and publications attest to the prolific European interest in phraseology. Bibliographies of recent studies on English and general phraseology are included in Welte (1990) and specially collected in Cowie & Howarth (1996) whose bibliography is reproduced and continued on the internet and provides a rich source of the most recent publications in the field [3].

Phraseological Units and Word-group

Phraseology is a branch of lexicology studying phraseological units (set expressions, praseologisms, or idioms (in foreign linguistics).

Phraseological units differ from free word-groups semantically and structurally:

1) they convey a single concept and their meaning is idiomatic, i.e. it is not a mere total of the meanings of their components

2) they are characterized by structural invariability (no word can be substituted for any component of a phraseological unit without destroying its sense (to have a bee in one’s bonnet (not cap or hat).

3) they are not created in speech but used as ready-made units.

A word-group is the largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more than one word but expressing one global concept.

The lexical meaning of the word groups is the combined lexical meaning of the component words. The meaning of the word groups is motivated by the meanings of the component members and is supported by the structural pattern. But it’s not a mere sum total of all these meanings! Polysemantic words are used in word groups only in 1 of their meanings. These meanings of the component words in such word groups are mutually interdependent and inseparable (blind man – «a human being unable to see», blind type – «the copy isn’t readable).

Words put together to form lexical units make phrases or word-groups. One must recall that lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups.

By the criterion of distribution all word-groups may be divided into two big classes: according to their head-words and according to their syntactical patterns.

Word-groups may be classified according to their head-words into:

nominal groups – red flower;

adjective groups – kind to people;

verbal groups – to speak well.

The head is not necessarily the component that occurs first.

Classification of Phraseological units

Phraseological units are classified in accordance with several criteria.

In the classification proposed by acad. Vinogradov Phraseological units are classified according to the semantic principle, and namely to the degree of motivation of meaning, i.e. the relationship between the meaning of the whole unit and the meaning of its components. Three groups are distinguished: phraseological fusions (сращения), phraseological unities (единства), phraseological combinations (сочетания).

1. Phraseological fusions are non-motivated. The meaning of the whole is not deduced from the meanings of the components: to kiss the hare’s foot (опаздывать), to kick the bucket (сыграть в ящик), the king’s picture (фальшивая монета)

2. Phraseological unities are motivated through the image expressed in the whole construction, the metaphores on which they are based are transparent: to turn over a new leaf, to dance on a tight rope.

3. Phraseological combinations are motivated; one of their components is used in its direct meaning while the other can be used figuratively: bosom friend, to get in touch with.

Prof. Smirnitsky classifies phraseological units according to the functional principle. Two groups are distinguished: phraseological units and idioms.

Phraseological units are neutral, non-metaphorical when compared to idioms: get up, fall asleep, to take to drinking. Idioms are metaphoric, stylistically coloured: to take the bull by the horns, to beat about the bush, to bark up the wrong tree.

Structurally prof. Smirnitsky distinguishes one-summit (one-member) and many-summit (two-member, three-member, etc.) phraseological units, depending on the number of notional words: against the grain (не по душе), to carry the day (выйти победителем), to have all one’s eggs in one basket.

Prof. Amosova classifies phraseological units according to the type of context. Phraseological units are marked by fixed (permanent) context, which can’t be changed: French leave (but not Spanish or Russian). Two groups are singled out: phrasemes and idioms.

1. Prasemes consist of two components one of which is praseologically bound, the second serves as the determining context: green eye (ревнивый взгляд), green hand (неопытный работник), green years (юные годы), green wound (незажившая рана), etc.

2. Idioms are characterized by idiomaticity: their meaning is created by the whole group and is not a mere combination of the meanings of its components: red tape (бюрократическая волокита), mare’s nest (нонсенс), to pin one’s heart on one’s sleeve (не скрывать своих чувств).

Prof. Koonin’s classification is based on the function of the phraseological unit in communication. Phraseological units are classified into: nominative, nominative-communicative, interjectional, communicative.

1. Nominative phraseological units are units denoting objects, phenomena, actions, states, qualities. They can be:

a) substantive – a snake in the grass (змея подколодная), a bitter pill to swallow;

b) adjectival – long in the tooth (старый);

c) adverbial – out of a blue sky, as quick as a flash;

d) prepositional – with an eye to (с намерением), at the head of.

2. Nominative-communicative units contain a verb: to dance on a volcano, to set the Thames on fire (сделать что-то необычное), to know which side one’s bread is buttered, to make (someone) turn (over) in his grave, to put the hat on smb’s misery (в довершение всех его бед).

3. Interjectional phraseological units express the speaker’s emotions and attitude to things: A pretty kettle of fish! (хорошенькое дельце), Good God! God damn it! Like hell!

4. Communicative phraseological units are represented by provebs (An hour in the morning is worth two in the evening; Never say “never”) and sayings. Sayings, unlike provebs, are not evaluative and didactic: That’s another pair of shoes! It’s a small world.

In dictionaries of idioms the traditional and oldest principle for classifying phraseological units – the thematic principle – is used.

The etymological classification of phraseological units

According to their origin phraseological units are divided into native and borrowed.

Native phraseological units are connected with British realia, traditions, history:

By bell book and candle (jocular) – бесповоротно. This unit originates from the text of the form of excommunication (отлучение от церкви) which ends with the following words: Doe to the book, quench the candle, ring the book!

To carry coal to Newcastle (parallells: Ехать в Тулу со своим самоваром, везти сов в Афины, везти пряности в Иран)

According to Cocker – по всем правилам, точно. E. Cocker is the author of a well-known book on arithmetics.

To native phraseological units also belong familiar quotations came from works of English literature. A lot of them were borrowed from works by Shakespeare: a fool’s paradise (“Romeo and Juliet”), the green-eyed monster (“Othello”), murder will out – шила в мешке не утаишь (“Macbeth”), etc.

A great number of native phraseological units originate from professional terminologies or jargons: one’s last card, the game is up/over lay one’s cards on the table hold all the aces (terms of gambling).

Borrowed phraseological units come from several sources.

A number of units were borrowed from the Bible and were fully assimilated: to cast pearl before swine, the root of all evil, a woolf in sheep’s clothing, to beat swords into plough-shares.

A great amount of units were taken from ancient mythology and literature: the apple of discord, the golden age, the thread of Ariadne, at the greek calends ( до греческих календ, никогда), etc, They are international in their character.

A lot of phraseologisms were borrowed from different languages – let’s return to our muttons (revenons à nos moutons), blood and iron (принцип политики Бисмарка – Blut und Eisen), blue blood, to lose face (кит. tiu lien) and from the other variants of the English language (AmE) – a green light, bark up the wrong tree, to look like a million dollars, time is money (B. Franklin “Advice to a Young Tradesman”).

How to Distinguish Phraseological Units from Free Word-Groups

The task of distinguishing between free word-groups and phraseological units is further complicated by the existence of a great number of marginal cases, the so-called semi-fixed or semi-free word-groups, also called non-phraseological word-groups which share with phraseological units their structural stability but lack their semantic unity and figurativeness (e. g. to go to school, to go by bus, to commit suicide). There are two major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word-groups: semantic and structural.

The semantic shift affecting phraseological units does not consist in a mere change of meanings of each separate constituent part of the unit. The meanings of the constituents merge to produce an entirely new meaning: e. g. to have a bee in one’s bonnet means «to have an obsession about something; to be eccentric or even a little mad». The humorous metaphoric comparison with a person who is distracted by a bee continually buzzing under his cap has become erased and half-forgotten, and the speakers using the expression hardly think of bees or bonnets but accept it in its transferred sense: «obsessed, eccentric».

In the traditional approach, phraseological units have been defined as word-groups conveying a single concept (whereas in free word-groups each meaningful component stands for a separate concept). The structural criterion brings forth pronounced distinctive features characterising phraseological units and contrasting them to free word-groups. Structural invariability is an essential feature of phraseological units, though, as we shall see, some of them possess it to a lesser degree than others.

Structural invariability of phraseological units finds expression in a number of restrictions:

1) restriction in substitution. As a rule, no word can be substituted for any meaningful component of a phraseological unit without destroying its sense.

2) The second type of restriction is the restriction in introducing any additional components into the structure of a phraseological unit. In a free word-group such changes can be made without affecting the general meaning of the utterance.

3) The third type of structural restrictions in phraseological units is grammatical invariability. Yet again, as in the case of restriction in introducing additional components, there are exceptions to the rule and these are probably even more numerous. One can build a castle in the air, but also castles.

Conclusion

The Phraseological units are closely connected with people’s mentality .The present day English can’t be considered full of value without idiomatic usage, as the use of idioms is the first sign of a certain language’s developing. Idiomatic sentences enrich a language and the knowledge of idioms signal that the speaker knows the language on the level of a native speaker. The belles-lettres investigated by us revealed a great number of idiomatic sentences used by prominent writers in their works to make their language more expressive and colourful. This research proposes practical hints for teachers wishing to diverse their lessons with idioms.

So idioms are integral part of language which make our speech more colourful and authentically native.

Bibliography

1.Knappe, Gabriele. (2004) Idioms and Fixed Expressions in English Language Study before 1800. Peter Lang;

2.Weinreich, Uriel (1969) Problems in the Analysis of Idioms. In J. Puhvel (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language, 23-81. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press;

3.Arnold, I.V. (1973) The English Word Moscow: Higher School Publishing House;

4.Internet site: http://www.roman.by/r-177452.html

5.Amоsоvа N. N. (1963) Basic course in English phraseology L;

6. Koonin А.V.( 1972) Phraseology of modern English. M.;

7. Vinogradov V.V. (1977) The chief types of Phraseological units in the Russian Language. – M.;

8. Zikova I.V.( 2005) А Practical Course in English Lexicology. М;

Free Word-groups and Phraseological units

Источник

Загружено в:

20.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

69 KB

Скачать

Источник

LECTURE 13.
PHRASEOLOGY: PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION
1) Free word-groups versus phraseological units versus words
a) Structural Criterion
b) Semantic criterion
c) Syntactic Criterion
2) Semantic structure of phraseological units
3) Types of transference of phraseological units
4) Classifications of phraseological units
a) Thematic principle of classification of phraseological units
b) Academician V.V. Vidogradov’s classification of phraseological units
c) Structural principle of classification of phraseological units
d) Professor Smirnitsky’s classification of phraseological units
e) Professor A.V. Koonin’s classification of phraseological units
f) Classification of phraseological units on the base of their origin

1. Free word-groups versus phraseological units versus words
A phraseological unit can be defined as a reproduced and idiomatic (non-motivaetd) or partially morivated unit built up according to the model of free word-groups (or sentences) and semantically and syntactically brought into correlation with words. Hence, there is a need for criteria exposing the degree of similarity / difference between phraseological units and free word-groups, phraseological units and words.
a) Structural Criterion
The structural criterion brings forth pronounced features which on the one hand state a certain structural similarity between phraseological units and free word-combinations at the same time opposing them to single words (1), and on the other hand specify their structural distinctions (2).
1) A feature proper both to free phrases and phraseological units is the divisibility (раздельнооформленность) of their structure, i.e. they consist of separate structural elements. This fact stands them in opposition to words as structurally integral (цельнооформленные) units. The structural integrity of a word is defined by the presence of a common grammatical form for all constituent elements of this word. For example, the grammatical change in the word shipwreck implies that inflexions are added to both elements of the word simultaneously — ship-wreck-( ), ship-wreck-s, while in the word-group the wreck of a ship each element can change its grammatical form independently from the other — (the) wreck-( ) of the ships, (the) wrecks of (the) ships. Like in word-groups, in phraseological units potentially any component may be changed grammatically, but these changes are rather few, limited and occasional and usually serve for a stylistic effect, e.g. a Black Maria ‘a van used by police for bringing suspected criminals to the police station’: the Blackest Maria, Black Marias.
2) The principal difference between phraseological units and free word-groups manifests itself in the structural invariability of the former. The structural invariability suggests no (or rather limited) substitutions of components. For example, to give somebody the cold shoulder means ‘to treat somebody coldly, to ignore or cut him’, but a warm shoulder or a cold elbow makes no sense. There are also strict restrictions on the componental extension and grammatical changes of components of phraseological units. The use of the words big, great in a white elephant meaning ‘an expensive but useless thing’ can change or even destroy the meaning of the phraseological unit. The same is true if the plural form feet in the phraseological unit from head to foot is used instead of the singular form. In a free word-group all these changes are possible.
b) Semantic criterion
The semantic criterion is of great help in stating the semantic difference/similarity between free word-groups and phraseological units, (1), and between phraseological units and words (2).
1) The meaning in phraseological units is created by mutual interaction of elements and conveys a single concept. The actual meaning of a phraseological unit is figurative (transferred) and is opposed to the literal meaning of a word-combination from which it is derived. The transference of the initial word-group can be based on simile, metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche. The degree of transference varies and may affect either the whole unit or only one of its constituents, cf.: to skate on thin ice – ‘to take risks’; the small hours — ‘the early hours of the morning’. Besides, in the formation of the semantic structure of phraseological units a cultural component plays a special and very important role. It marks phraseological units as bearers of cultural information based on a unique experience of the nation. For example, the phraseological unit red tape originates in the old custom of Government officials and lawyers tying up (перевязывать) their papers with red tape. Heads or tails comes from the old custom of deciding a dispute or settling which of two possible alternatives shall be followed by tossing a coin (heads refers to the sovereign’s head on one side of the coin, and tails means the reverse side).
In a free phrase the semantic correlative ties are fundamentally different. The meaning in a word-group is based on the combined meaning of the words constituting its structure. Each element in a word-combination has a much greater semantic independence and stands for a separate concept, e.g. to cut bread, to cut cheese, to eat bread. Every word in a free phrase can form additional syntactic ties with other words outside the expression retaining its individual meaning.
2) The semantic unity, however, makes phraseological units similar to words. The semantic similarity between the two is proved by the fact that, for instance, kick the bucket whose meaning is understood as a whole and not related to the meaning of individual words can be replaced within context by the word to die, the phraseological unit in a brown study – by the word gloomy.
c) Syntactic Criterion
The syntactic criterion reveals the close ties between single words and phraseological units as well as free word-groups. Like words (as well as word-combinations), phraseological units may have different syntactic functions in the sentence, e.g. the subject (narrow escape, first night, baker’s dozen), the predicate (to have a good mind, to play Russian roulette, to make a virtue of necessity), an attribute (high and mighty, quick on the trigger, as ugly as sin), an adverbial (in full swing, on second thoughts, off the record). In accordance with the function they perform in the sentence phraseological units can be classified into: substantive, verbal, adjectival, adverbial, interjectional.
Like free word-groups phraseological units can be divided into coordinative (e.g. the life and soul of something, free and easy, neck and crop) and subordinative (e.g. long in the tooth, a big fish in a little pond, the villain of the piece).
Thus, the characteristic features of phraseological units are: ready-made reproduction, structural divisibility, morphological stability, permanence of lexical composition, semantic unity, syntactic fixity.
2. Semantic structure of phraseological units
The semantic structure of phraseological units is formed by semantic ultimate constituents called macrocomponents of meaning. The macrocomponental model of phraseological meaning was worked out by V.N. Teliya. There are the following principal macrocomponents in the semantic structure of phraseological units:
1. Denotational (descriptive) macrocomponent that contains the information about the objective reality, it is the procedure connected with categorization, i.e. the classification of phenomena of the reality, based on the typical idea about what is denoted by a phraseological unit, i.e. about the denotatum.
2. Evaluational macrocomponent that contains information about the value of what is denoted by a phraseological unit, i.e. what value the speaker sees in this or that object/phenomenon of reality – the denotatum. The rational evaluation may be positive, negative and neutral, e.g. a home from home – ‘a place or situation where one feels completely happy and at ease’ (positive), the lion’s den — ‘a place of great danger’ (negative), in the flesh — ‘in bodily form’ (neutral). Evaluation may depend on empathy (i.e. a viewpoint) of the speaker/ hearer.
3. Motivational macrocomponent that correlates with the notion of the inner form of a phraseological unit, which may be viewed as the motif of transference, the image-forming base, the associative-imaginary complex, etc. The notion ‘motivation of a phraseological unit’ can be defined as the aptness of ‘the literal reading’ of a unit to be associated with the denotational and evaluational aspects of meaning. For example, the literal reading of the phraseological unit to have broad shoulders evokes associations connected with physical strength of a person. The idea that broad shoulders are indicative of a person’s strength and endurance actualizes, becomes the base for transference and forms the following meaning: ‘to be able to bear the full weight of one’s responsibilities’.
4. Emotive macrocomponent that is the contents of subjective modality expressing feeling-relation to what is denoted by a phraseological unit within the range of approval/disapproval, e.g. a leading light in something —‘a person who is important in a particular group’ (spoken with approval), to lead a cat and dog life — ‘used to describe a husband and wife who quarrel furiously with each other most of the time’ (spoken with disapproval). Emotiveness is also the result of interpretation of the imaginary base (образное основание) in a cultural aspect.
5. Stylistic macrocomponent that points to the communicative register in which a phraseological unit is used and to the social-role relationships between the participants of communication, e.g. sick at heart — ‘very sad’ (formal), be sick to death —‘to be angry and bored because something unpleasant has been happening for too long’ (informal), pass by on the other side — ‘to ignore a person who needs help’ (neutral).
6. Grammatical macrocomponent that contains the information about all possible morphological and syntactic changes of a phraseo¬logical unit, e.g. to be in deep water = to be in deep waters; to take away smb’s breath = to take smb’s breath away; Achilles’ heel = the heel of Achilles.
7. Gender macrocomponent (was singled out by I.V. Zykova) that may be expressed explicitly, i.e. determined by the structure and/or semantics of a phraseological unit, and in that case it points out to the class of objects denoted by the phraseological unit: men, women, people (both men and women). For example, compare the phraseological units every Tom, Dick and Harry meaning ‘every or any man’ and every Tom, Dick and Sheila which denotes ‘every or any man and woman’. Gender macrocomponent may be expressed implicitly and then it denotes the initial (or historical) reference of a phraseological unit to the class of objects denoted by it which is as a rule stipulated by the historical development, traditions, stereotypes, cultural realia of the given society, e.g. to wash one’s dirty linen in public — ‘discuss or argue about one’s personal affairs in public’. The implicit presence of the gender macrocomponent in this phraseo- logical unit is conditioned by the idea about traditional women’s work (cf. with Russian: выносить cop из избы). Gender, implicitly as well as explicitly expressed, reveals knowledge about such cultural concepts as masculinity and femininity that are peculiar to this or that society. The implicit gender macrocomponent is defined within the range of three conceptual spheres: masculine, feminine, intergender. Compare, for instance, the implicitly expressed intergender macrocomponent in to feel like royalty meaning ‘to feel like a member of the Royal Family, to feel majestic’ and its counterparts, i.e. phraseological units with explicitly expressed gender macrocomponent, to feel like a queen and to feel like a king.
3. Types of transference of phraseological units
Phraseological transference is a complete or partial change of meaning of an initial (source) word-combination (or a sentence) as a result of which the word-combination (or the sentence) acquires a new meaning and turns into a phraseological unit. Phraseological transference may be based on simile, metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, etc. or on their combination.
1) Transference based on simile is the intensification of some feature of an object (phenomenon, thing) denoted by a phraseological unit by means of bringing it into contact with another object (phenomenon, thing) belonging to an entirely different class. Compare the following English and Russian phraseological units: (as) pretty as a picture — хороша как картинка, (as) fat as a pig — жирный как свинья, to fight like a lion — сражаться как лев, to swim like a fish — плавать как рыба.
2) Transference based on metaphor is a likening (уподобление) of one object (phenomenon, action) of reality to another, which is associated with it on the basis of real or imaginable resemblance. For example, in the phraseological unit to bend somebody to one’s bow meaning ‘to submit someone’ transference is based on metaphor, i.e. on the likening of a subordinated, submitted person to a thing (bow) a good command of which allows its owner to do with it everything he wants to.
Metaphors can bear a hyperbolic character: flog a dead horse —‘waste energy on a lost cause or unalterable situation (букв, стегать дохлую лошадь). Metaphors may also have a euphemistic character which serves to soften unpleasant facts: go to one’s long rest, join the majority – ‘to die’.
3) Transference based on metonymy is a transfer of name (перенос наименования) from one object (phenomenon, thing, action, process, etc.) to another based on the contiguity of their properties, relations, etc’ The transfer of name is conditioned by close ties between the two objects, the idea about one object is inseparably linked with the idea about the other object. For example, the metonymical transference in the phraseological unit a silk stocking meaning ‘a rich, well-dressed man’ is based on the replacement of the genuine object (a man) by the article of clothing which was very fashionable and popular among men in the past.
4) Synecdoche is a variety of metonymy. Transference based on synecdoche is naming the whole by its part, the replacement of the common by the private, of the plural by the singular and vice versa. For example, the components flesh and blood in the phraseological unit in the flesh and blood meaning ‘in a material form’ as the integral parts of the real existence replace a person himself or any living being, see the following sentences: We’ve been writing to each other for ten years, but now he’s actually going to be here in the flesh and blood. Thousands of fans flocked to Dublin to see their heroes in the flesh and blood. Synecdoche is usually found in combination with other types of transference, e.g. metaphor: to hold one’s tongue — ‘to say nothing, to be discreet’.
4. Classifications of phraseological units
a) Thematic principle of classification of phraseological units
The traditional and oldest principle for classifying phraseological units is based on their original content and might be alluded to as «thematic» (although the term is not universally accepted). The approach is widely used in numerous English and American guides to idiom, phrase books, etc. On this principle, idioms are classified according to their sources of origin, ‘source’ referring to the particular sphere of human activity, of life of nature, of natural phenomena, etc. So, L. P. Smith gives in his classification groups of idioms used by sailors, fishermen, soldiers, hunters and associated with the realia, phenomena and conditions of their occupations. In Smith’s classification we also find groups of idioms associated with domestic and wild animals and birds, agriculture and cooking. There are also numerous idioms drawn from sports, arts, etc.
This principle of classification is sometimes called «etymological». The term does not seem appropriate since we usually mean something different when we speak of the etymology of a word or word-group: whether the word (or word-group) is native or borrowed, and, if the latter, what is the source of borrowing. It is true that Smith makes a special study of idioms borrowed from other languages, but that is only a relatively small part of his classification system. The general principle is not etymological.
Smith points out that word-groups associated with the sea and the life of seamen are especially numerous in English vocabulary. Most of them have long since developed metaphorical meanings which have no longer any association with the sea or sailors. Here are some examples.
To be all at sea — to be unable to understand; to be in a state of ignorance or bewilderment about something (e. g. How can I be a judge in a situation in which I am all at sea? I’m afraid I’m all at sea in this problem). V. H. Collins remarks that the metaphor is that of a boat tossed about, out of control, with its occupants not knowing where they are.
To sink or swim — to fail or succeed (e. g. It is a case of sink or swim. All depends on his own effort.)
In deep water — in trouble or danger.
In low water, on the rocks — in strained financial circumstances.
To be in the same boat with somebody — to be in a situation in which people share the same difficulties and dangers (e. g. I don’t like you much, but seeing that we’re in the same boat I’ll back you all I can). The metaphor is that of passengers in the life-boat of a sunken ship.
To sail under false colours — to pretend to be what one is not; sometimes, to pose as a friend and, at the same time, have hostile intentions. The metaphor is that of an enemy ship that approaches its intended prey showing at the mast the flag («colours») of a pretended friendly nation.
To show one’s colours — to betray one’s real character or intentions. The allusion is, once more, to a ship showing the flag of its country at the mast.
To strike one’s colours — to surrender, give in, admit one is beaten. The metaphor refers to a ship’s hauling down its flag (sign of surrender).
To weather (to ride out) the storm — to overcome difficulties; to have courageously stood against misfortunes.
To bow to the storm — to give in, to acknowledge one’s defeat.
Three sheets in(to) the wind (sl.) — very drunk.
Half seas over (sl.) — drunk.
The thematic principle of classifying phraseological units has real merit but it does not take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of the phraseological units.
b) Academician V.V. Vidogradov’s classification of phraseological units
The classification system of phraseological units devised by V.V. Vinogradov is considered by some linguists of today to be outdated, and yet its value is beyond doubt because it was the first classification system which was based on the semantic principle. It goes without saying that semantic characteristics are of immense importance in phraseological units. It is also well known that in modern research they are often sadly ignored. That is why any attempt at studying the semantic aspect of phraseological units should be appreciated.
V.V. Vinogradov’s classification system is founded on the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit. Units with a partially transferred meaning show the weakest cohesion between their components. The more distant the meaning of a phraseological unit from the current meaning of its constituent parts, the greater is its degree of semantic cohesion. Accordingly, V.V. Vinogradov classifies phraseological units according to the degree of idiomaticity. Here are three classes of phraseological units: phraseological fusions (сращения), phraseological unities (единства) and phraseological collocations (сочетания).
1) Phraseological combinations are word-groups with a partially changed meaning. They may be said to be clearly motivated, that is, the meaning of the unit can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents.
E. g. to be at one’s wits’ end, to be good at something, to be a good hand at something, to have a bite, to come off a poor second, to come to a sticky end (coll.), to look a sight (coll.), to take something for granted, to stick to one’s word, to stick at nothing, gospel truth, bosom friends.
2) Phraseological unities are word-groups with a completely changed meaning, that is, the meaning of the unit does not correspond to the meanings of its constituent parts. They are motivated units or, putting it another way, the meaning of the whole unit can be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning is based, is clear and transparent.
E. g. to stick to one’s guns (~ to be true to one’s views or convictions. The image is that of a gunner or guncrew who do not desert their guns even if a battle seems lost); to sit on the fence (~ in discussion, politics, etc. refrain from committing oneself to either side); to catch/clutch at a straw/straws (~ when in extreme danger, avail oneself of even the slightest chance of rescue); to lose one’s head (~ to be at a loss what to do; to be out of one’s mind); to lose one’s heart to smb. (~ to fall in love); to lock the stable door after the horse is stolen (~ to take precautions too late, when the mischief is done); to look a gift horse in the mouth (= to examine a present too critically; to find fault with something one gained without effort); to ride the high horse (~ to behave in a superior, haughty, overbearing way. The image is that of a person mounted on a horse so high that he looks down on others); the last drop/straw (the final culminating circumstance that makes a situation unendurable); a big bug/pot, sl. (a person of importance); a fish out of water (a person situated uncomfortably outside his usual or proper environment).
3) Phraseological fusions are word-groups with a completely changed meaning but, in contrast to the unities, they are demotivated, that is, their meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning was based, has lost its clarity and is obscure.
E. g. to come a cropper (to come to disaster); neck and crop (entirely, altogether, thoroughly, as in: He was thrown out neck and crop. She severed all relations with them neck and crop.); at sixes and sevens (in confusion or in disagreement); to set one’s cap at smb. (to try and attract a man; spoken about girls and women. The image, which is now obscure, may have been either that of a child trying to catch a butterfly with his cap or of a girl putting on a pretty cap so as to attract a certain person. In Vanity Fair: «Be careful, Joe, that girl is setting her cap at you.»); to leave smb. in the lurch (to abandon a friend when he is in trouble); to show the white feather (to betray one’s cowardice. The allusion was originally to cock fighting. A white feather in a cock’s plumage denoted a bad fighter); to dance attendance on smb. (to try and please or attract smb.; to show exaggerated attention to smb.).
c) Structural principle of classification of phraseological units
It is obvious that Acadimician V.V. Vinogradov’s classification system does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological units. On the other hand, the border-line separating unities from fusions is vague and even subjective. One and the same phraseological unit may appear motivated to one person (and therefore be labelled as a unity) and demotivated to another (and be regarded as a fusion). The more profound one’s command of the language and one’s knowledge of its history, the fewer fusions one is likely to discover in it.
The structural principle of classifying phraseological units is based on their ability to perform the same syntactical functions as words. In the traditional structural approach, the following principal groups of phraseological units are distinguishable.
A.Verbal. E. g. to run for one’s (dear) life, to get (win) the upper hand, to talk through one’s hat, to make a song and dance about something, to sit pretty (Amer. sl.).
B.Substantive. E. g. dog’s life, cat-and-dog life, calf love, white lie, tall order, birds of a feather, birds of passage, red tape, brown study.
C.Adjectival. E. g. high and mighty, spick and span, brand new, safe and sound. In this group the so-called comparative word-groups are particularly expressive and sometimes amusing in their unanticipated and capricious associations: (as) cool as a cucumber, (as) nervous as a cat, (as) weak as a kitten, (as) good as gold (usu. spoken about children), (as) pretty as a picture, as large as life, (as) slippery as an eel, (as) thick as thieves, (as) drunk as an owl (sl.), (as) mad as a hatter/a hare in March.
D. Adverbial. E. g. high and low (as in They searched for him high and low), by hook or by crook (as in She decided that, by hook or by crook, she must marry him), for love or money (as in He came to the conclusion that a really good job couldn’t be found for love or money), in cold blood (as in The crime was said to have been committed in cold blood), in the dead of night, between the devil and the deep sea (in a situation in which danger threatens whatever course of action one takes), to the bitter end (as in to fight to the bitter end), by a long chalk (as in It is not the same thing, by a long chalk).
E. Interjectional. E. g. my God/ by Jove! by George! goodness gracious! good Heavens! sakes alive! (Amer.)
d) Professor A.I. Smirnitsky’s classification of phraseological units
Professor Smirnitsky offered a classification system for English phraseological units which is interesting as an attempt to combine the structural and the semantic principles. Phraseological units in this classification system are grouped according to the number and semantic significance of their constituent parts. Accordingly two large groups are established:
A. One-summit units, which have one meaningful constituent (e. g. to give up, to make out, to pull out, to be tired, to be surprised1);
B. Two-summit and multi-summit units which have two or more meaningful constituents (e. g. black art, first night, common sense, to fish in troubled waters).
Within each of these large groups the phraseological units are classified according to the category of parts of speech of the summit constituent. So, one-summit units are subdivided into: a) verbal-adverbial units equivalent to verbs in which the semantic and the grammatical centres coincide in the first constituent (e. g. to give up); b) units equivalent to verbs which have their semantic centre in the second constituent and their grammatical centre in the first (e. g. to be tired); c) prepositional-substantive units equivalent either to adverbs or to copulas and having their semantic centre in the substantive constituent and no grammatical centre (e. g. by heart, by means of).
Two-summit and multi-summit phraseological units are classified into: a) attributive-substantive two-summit units equivalent to nouns (e. g. black art), b) verbal-substantive two-summit units equivalent to verbs (e. g. to take the floor), c) phraseological repetitions equivalent to adverbs (e. g. now or never); d) adverbial multi-summit units (e. g. every other day).
Professor A.I. Smirnitsky also distinguishes proper phraseological units which, in his classification system, are units with non-figurative meanings, and idioms, that is, units with transferred meanings based on a metaphor.
Professor A.V. Koonin, the leading Russian authority on English phraseology, pointed out certain inconsistencies in this classification system. First of all, the subdivision into phraseological units (as non-idiomatic units) and idioms contradicts the leading criterion of a phraseological unit suggested by Professor Smirnitsky: it should be idiomatic.
Professor Koonin also objects to the inclusion of such word-groups as black art, best man, first night in phraseology (in Professor Smirnitsky’s classification system, the two-summit phraseological units) as all these word-groups are not characterised by a transferred meaning. It is also pointed out that verbs with post-positions (e. g. give up) are included in the classification but their status as phraseological units is not supported by any convincing argument.
e) Professor A.V. Koonin’s classification of phraseological units
The classification system of phraseological units suggested by Professor A. V. Koonin is the latest out-standing achievement in the Russian theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural-semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of phraseological units.
Phraseological units are subdivided into the following four classes according to their function in communication determined by their structural-semantic characteristics.
1) Nominative phraseological units are represented by word-groups, including the ones with one meaningful word, and coordinative phrases of the type wear and tear, well and good. The first class also includes word-groups with a predicative structure, such as as the crow flies, and, also, predicative phrases of the type see how the land lies, ships that pass in the night.
2) Nominative-communicative phraseological units include word-groups of the type to break the ice — the ice is broken, that is, verbal word-groups which are transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the Passive Voice.
3) Phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word-groups.
4) Communicative phraseological units are represented by proverbs and sayings.
These four classes are divided into sub-groups according to the type of structure of the phraseological unit. The sub-groups include further rubrics representing types of structural-semantic meanings according to the kind of relations between the constituents and to either full or partial transference of meaning.
The classification system includes a considerable number of subtypes and gradations and objectively reflects the wealth of types of phraseological units existing in the language. It is based on truly scientific and modern criteria and represents an earnest attempt to take into account all the relevant aspects of phraseological units and combine them within the borders of one classification system.
f) Classification of phraseological units on the base of their origin
The consideration of the origin of phraseological units contributes to a better understanding of phraseological meaning. According to their origin all phraseological units may be divided into two big groups: native and borrowed.
a) The main sources of native phraseological units are:
1) Terminological and professional lexics, e.g. physics: center of gravity (центр тяжести), specific weight (удельный вес); navigation: cut the painter (обрубить канат) — ‘to become independent’, lower one’s colours (спустить свой флаг) — ‘to yield, to give in’; military sphere: fall into line (стать в строй) — ‘conform with others’;
2) British literature, e.g. the green-eyed monster —‘jealousy’ (W.Shakespeare); like Hamlet without the prince —‘the most important person at event is absent’ (W.Shakespeare); fall on evil days —‘live in poverty after having enjoyed better times’ (J.Milton); a sight for sore eyes — ‘a person or thing that one is extremely pleased or relieved to see’ (J.Swift); how goes the enemy? (Ch. Dickens) —‘what is the time?’; never say die —‘do not give up hope in a difficult situation’ (Ch.Dickens);
3) British traditions and customs, e.g. baker’s dozen —‘a group of thirteen’. In the past British merchants of bread received from bakers thirteen loaves instead of twelve and the thirteenth loaf was merchants’ profit.
4) Superstitions and legends, e.g. a black sheep —‘a less successful or more immoral person in a family or a group’. People believed that a black sheep was marked by the devil; the halcyon days —‘a very happy or successful period in the past’. According to an ancient legend a halcyon (зимородок) hatches/grows its fledglings in a nest that sails in the sea and during this period (about two weeks) the sea is completely calm;
5) Historical facts and events, personalities, e.g. as well be hanged (or hung) for a sheep as a lamb —‘something that you say when you are going to be punished for something so you decide to do something worse because your punishment will not be any more severe’. According to an old law a person who stole a sheep was sentenced to death by hanging, so it was worth stealing something more because there was no worse punishment; to do a Thatcher —‘to stay in power as prime minister for three consecutive terms (from the former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher)’;
6) Phenomena and facts of everyday life, e.g. carry coals to Newcastle —‘to take something to a place where there is plenty of it available’. Newcastle is a town in Northern England where a lot of coal was produced; to get out of wood —‘to be saved from danger or difficulty’.
b) The main sources of borrowed phraseological units are:
1) the Holy Script, e.g. the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing —‘communication in an organization is bad so that one part does not know what is happening in another part’; the kiss of Judas — ‘any display of affection whose purpose is to conceal any act of treachery’ (Matthew XXVI: 49);
2) Ancient legends and myths belonging to different religious or cultural traditions, e.g. to cut the Gordian knot —‘to deal with a difficult problem in a strong, simple and effective way’ (from the legend saying that Gordius, king of Gordium, tied an intricate knot and prophesied that whoever untied it would become the ruler of Asia. It was cut through with a sword by Alexander the Great); a Procrustean bed —‘a harsh, inhumane system into which the individual is fitted by force, regardless of his own needs and wishes’ (from Greek Mythology, Procrustes — a robber who forced travelers to lie on a bed and made them fit by stretching their limbs or cutting off the appropriate length of leg);
3) Facts and events of the world history, e.g. to cross the Rubicon —‘to do something which will have very important results which cannot be changed after’. Julius Caesar started a war which resulted in victory for him by crossing the river Rubicon in Italy; to meet one’s Waterloo —‘be faced with, esp. after previous success, a final defeat, a difficulty or obstacle one cannot overcome (from the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo 1815)’;
4) Variants of the English language, e.g. a heavy hitter —‘someone who is powerful and has achieved a lot’ (American); a hole card —‘a secret advantage that is ready to use when you need it’ (American); be home and hosed —‘to have completed something successfully’ (Australian);
5) Other languages (classical and modern), e.g. second to none —‘equal with any other and better than most’ (from Latin: nulli secundus); for smb’s fair eyes —‘because of personal sympathy, not be worth one’s deserts, services, for nothing’ (from French: pour les beaux yeux de qn.); the fair sex — ‘women’ (from French: le beau sex); let the cat out of the bag — ‘reveal a secret carelessly or by mistake’ (from German: die Katze aus dem Sack lassen); tilt at windmills —‘to waste time trying to deal with enemies or problems that do no exist’ (from Spanish: acometer molinos de viento); every dog is a lion at home — ‘to feel significant in the familiar surrounding’ (from Italian: ogni cane e leone a casa sua).

Источник