The lexical meaning of the word groups

As
with word-meaning, the meaning of word-groups may be analysed into
lexical
and grammatical
components.

§ 4. Lexical Meaning

The
lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined
lexical meaning of the component words. Thus the lexical meaning of
the word-group red
flower
may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words
red
and
flower.
It
should be pointed out, however, that the term combined
lexical
meaning
is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive
result of all the lexical meanings of the component members. 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 its constituents.

Even
in word-groups made up of technical terms which are traditionally
held to be monosemantic the meaning of the word-group cannot be
described as the sum total of the meanings of its components. For
example, though the same adjective atomic
is
a component of a number of terminological word-groups, e.g. atomic
weight, atomic warfare, etc.,
the lexical meaning of the adjective is different and to a certain
degree subordinated to the meaning of the noun in each individual
word-group and consequently the meaning of the whole group is
modified.

Interdependence
of the lexical meanings of the constituent members of word-groups can
be readily observed in word-groups made up of polysemantic words. For
example, in the nominal group blind
man (cat, horse) only
one meaning of the adjective blind,
i.e.
‘unable to see’, is combined with the lexical meaning of the noun
man (cat, horse)
and
it is only one of the meanings of the noun man
— ‘human
being’ that is perceived in combination with the lexical meaning of
this adjective. The meaning of the same adjective in blind
type (print, handwriting) is
different.

As
can be seen from the above examples, polysemantic words are used in
word-groups only in one of their meanings. These meanings of the
component words in such word-groups are mutually interdependent and
inseparable. Semantic inseparability of word-groups that allows us to
treat them as self-contained lexical units is also clearly perceived
in the analysis of the connotational component of their lexical
meaning. Stylistic reference of word-groups, for example, may be
essentially different from that of the words making up these groups.
There is nothing colloquial or slangy about such words as old,
boy, bag, fun, etc.
when taken in isolation. The word-groups made up of these words, e.g.
old boy, bags of fun, are recognisably
colloquial.

Structural
Meaning

As
with polymorphemic words word-groups possess not only the lexical
meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of
arrangement of their constituents. A certain parallel can be drawn
between the meaning conveyed by the arrangement of morphemes in words
and the structural meaning of word-groups.¹
It will be recalled that two compound words made up of lexically
identical stems may be different in meaning because of the difference
in the pattern of arrangement of the stems. For example, the meaning
of such words as dog-house
and
house-dog
is
different though the lexical meaning of the components is identical.
This is also true of word-groups. Such word-groups as school
grammar and
grammar
school are
semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of
arrangement of the component words. It is assumed that 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. In the example discussed above (school
grammar) the
structural meaning of the word-group may be abstracted from the group
and described as ‘quality-substance’ meaning. This is the meaning
expressed by the pattern of the word-group but not by either the word
school
or
the word grammar.
It follows
that we have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given
type of word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its
constituents.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

LECTURE 12.
WORD-GROUPS AND PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
1. Lexical and Grammatical Valency
2. Structure and Classification of Word-Groups
3. Types of Meaning of Word-Groups
4. Motivation in Word-Groups

1. Lexical and grammatical valency
The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability. The noun job, for example, is often combined with such adjectives as backbreaking, difficult, hard; full-time, part-time, summer, cushy, easy; demanding; menial, etc. The noun myth may be a component of a number of word-groups, e.g. to create a myth, to dispel a myth, to explode a myth, myths and legends, etc. Lexical valency acquires special importance in case of polysemy as through the lexical valency different meanings of a polysemantic word can be distinguished, for instance, cf.: heavy table (safe, luggage); heavy snow (rain, storm); heavy drinker (eater); heavy sleep (sorrow, disappointment); heavy industry (tanks).
The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. Though the verbs lift and raise are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question.
The restrictions of lexical valency of words may also manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word groups. For example, the adjective heavy in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’ is combined with the words food, meals, supper. But it cannot be used with the words cheese or sausage (the words with more or less the same component of meaning) implying that the cheese or the sausage is difficult to digest.
Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliche, for instance, the noun arms and the noun race. Thus, arms race is a cliche.
The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is different, cf.: in English pot flowers – in Russian комнатные цветы.
Grammatical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures. The minimal grammatical context in which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-groups. For instance, the verb to offer can be followed by the infinitive (to offer to do smth.) and the noun (to offer a cup of tea). The verb to suggest can be followed by the gerund (to suggest doing smth.) and the noun (to suggest an idea). The grammatical valency of these verbs is different.
The adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: adjective + preposition ‘at’ + noun (clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.
The grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical, cf.: in English to influence a person, a decision, a choice (verb + noun) — in Russian влиять на человека, на решение, на выбор (verb + preposition + noun).

2. Structure and classification of word groups
The term ‘syntactic structure (formula)’ implies the description of the order and arrangement of member-words in word-groups as parts of speech. For instance, the syntactic structure of the word-groups a clever man, a red flower may be described as made up of an adjective and a noun, i.e. A + N; of the word-groups to take books, to build houses — as a verb and a noun, i.e. V + N.
The structure of word-groups may also be described in relation to the head-word. In this case it is usual to speak of the pattern but not of formulas. For example, the patterns of the verbal groups to take books, to build houses are to take + N, to build + N. The term ‘syntactic pattern’ implies the description of the structure of the word-group in which a given word is used as its head.
According to the syntactic pattern word-groups may be classified into predicative and non-predicative. Predicative word-groups have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence, e.g. he went, John works. All other word-groups are called non-predicative. Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided into subordinative (e.g. red flower, a man of wisdom) and coordinative (e.g. women and children, do or die).
Structurally, all word-groups can be classified by the criterion of distribution into two extensive classes: endocentric and exocentric.
Endocentric word-groups are those that have one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group, i.e. the distribution
The meaning of word-groups can be divided into: 1) lexical and 2) structural (grammatical) components of the whole word-group and the distribution of its central member are identical. For instance, in the word-groups red flower, kind to people, the head-words are the noun flower and the adjective kind correspondingly. These word-groups are distributionally identical with their central components. According to their central members word-groups may be classified into: nominal groups or phrases (e.g. redflower), adjectival groups (e.g. kind to people), verbal groups (e.g. to speak well), etc.
Exocentric word-groups are those that have no central component and the distribution of the whole word-group is different from either of its members. For instance, the distribution of the word-group side by side is not identical with the distribution of its component-members, i.e. the component-members are not syntactically substitutable for the whole word-group.
3. Types of meaning of word-groups
The meaning of word-groups can be divided into: 1) lexical and 2) structural (grammatical) components).
1. The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. Thus, the lexical meaning of the word-group red flower may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red and flower. However, the term ‘combined lexical meaning’ is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive result of all the lexical meanings of the component members. The lexical meaning of the word-group predominates over the lexical meanings of its constituents.
2. The structural meaning of the word-group is the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of its constituents. For example, such word-groups as school grammar (школьная грамматика) and grammar school (грамматическая школа) are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words. The structural meaning is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the word-group but not either by the word school or the word grammar. It follows that it is necessary to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of a word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.
The lexical and structural components of meaning in word-groups are interdependent and inseparable. For instance, the structural pattern of the word-groups all day long, all night long, all week long in ordinary usage and the word-group all the sun long is identical. The generalized meaning of the pattern may be described as ‘a unit of time’. Replacing day, night, week by another noun – the sun the structural meaning of the pattern does not change. The group all the sun long functions semantically as a unit of time. But the noun sun included in the group, continues to carry the semantic value, i.e. the lexical meaning that it has in word-groups of other structural patterns, e.g. the sun rays, African sun.
Thus, the meaning of the word-group is derived from the combined lexical meanings of its constituents and is inseparable from the meaning of the pattern of their arrangement.

4. Motivation in word-groups
Semantically all word-groups can be classified into motivated and non-motivated.
A word-group is lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the meanings of its components, e.g. red flower, heavy weight, teach a lesson.
If the combined lexical meaning of a word-group is not deducible from the lexical meanings of its constituent components, such a word-group is lexically non-motivated, e.g. red tape (‘official bureaucratic methods’), take place (‘occur’).
The degree of motivation can be different. Between the extremes о complete motivation and lack of motivation there are innumerable intermediate cases. For example, the degree of lexical motivation in the nominal group black market is higher than in black death, but lower than in black dress, though none of the groups can be considered completely non-motivated. This is also true of other words-groups, e.g old man and old boy both of which may be regarded as lexically motivated though the degree of motivation in old man is noticeably higher.
It should be noted that seemingly identical word-groups are sometimes found to be motivated or non-motivated depending on their semantic interpretation. Thus, apple sauce is lexically motivated where it means ‘a sauce made of apples’ but when used to denote ‘nonsense’ it is clearly non-motivated.
Completely non-motivated or partially motivated word-groups are described as phraseological units or idioms.

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: 27358
Найти в Wikkipedia статьи с фразой: Free word groups. Phraseological units