PHRASEOLOGY

Phraseology: Introductory Marks. Definition.

When we look at written and spoken texts in English, we see a large number of recurring fixed word-groups. In modern linguistics there is considerable confusion about the terminology associated with these word-groups. Most Russian scholars use the term phraseological unit first introduced by V.V. Vinogradov but there are also other terms denoting more or less the same phenomenon: set expressions, set-phrases, fixed word-groups. Most western scholars use the term idiom that can be misleading for the Russian learners as in the linguistic tradition of this country it is applied only to a certain group of phraseological units.

The tradition to discriminate between the free word combinations and phraseological units appeared after Ch. Bally’s book «French Stylistics» at the beginning of the XX century in which he laid down the foundation of phraseology as a science. The term phraseology literary means «the science of phrases».

In Russian linguistic literature the word phraseology denotes a branch of linguistics studying word-groups characterised by certain linguistic properties.

In English and American linguistics the situation is difficult. No special branch of study exists. The term phraseology is a stylistic one denoting «a mode of expression peculiarities of diction, that is the choice and arrangement of words and phrases characteristic of some author or literary work.

We shall use this term in the former sense understanding by it a certain part of the vocabulary.

Nowadays opinions differ as to how this part of the vocabulary should be defined, classifies, described, and analysed. Many various lines of approach to the study of the phraseological units have been suggested but the problem still remains.

Classification of Phraseological Units.

The question of classification of phraseological units is mainly worked out in this country. The most significant theories advanced for the Russian phraseology are those by academician V.V. Vinogradov and Larin. As for the English language the first doctoral thesis on this subject was the work of N.N. Amosova, then the work of A.V. Kunin came.

The classification of V.V. Vinogradov is synchronic. He developed some points first advanced by Ch. Bally and gave a strong impact to the purely lexicological treatment of the material. V.V. Vinogradov considered that phraseology includes all those expressions where the meaning of one element is dependent on the other and which are used in speech ready-made. His classification is based on the motivation of the unit, that is the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole and the meanings of the component parts. According to the type of motivation three groups of phraseological units were suggested: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities, and collocations.

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups the meaning of which can not be deduced from the meanings of the elements [ Red tape, tit for tat (зуб за зуб)].

Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated. They also have one integral meaning but their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. It is connected with the image on the basis of which it is created [ to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public ].

So semantic integrity is a common feature of phraseological fusions and unities, but as distinct from fusions, the meaning of unities is connected with the underlined inner image.

Collocations are motivated. They contain one component used in its direct meaning while the other is used figuratively [ to meet the demand, to take offence ].

The common characteristic of all the three types of phraseological units is their reproductivity. They are not formed in the process of speech, but are reproduced ready-made.

The main drawback of V.V. Vinogradov’s classification is that it lacks a general theoretical basis. Secondly, as has been pointed out by N.N. Amosova and A.V. Kunin, this criterion being developed for the Russian phraseology doesn’t fit the specifically English features.

N.N. Amosova’s approach is contextual. She viewed word combinations as variable contexts, and phraseological units as fixed contexts. Phraseological units are divided into phrasemes and idioms.

Phrasemes are already binary, they consist of two words, one of which is used as its phraseologically bound component, and the other is used in its direct meaning and serves as the determining context (indicating minimum) [ blind letter: письмо без адреса ].

In idioms the new integral meaning is created by the unit as a whole though every element may have its original meaning weakened or completely lost [ mare’s nest: чепуха ]. N.N. Amosova distinguishes motivated and demotivated idioms. The first are homonymous to free phrases used figuratively, the underlined image in these units is transparent [ to look through one’s finger ]; the second are characterised by the integrity of meaning as a whole with the meaning of each of the components entirely lost [ white elephant: обреченный на насмешки ].

A.V. Kunin lays stress on the structural separateness of the elements in a phraseological unit, on the change of meaning as a whole as compared with its elements standing separately, and on a certain minimum of stability. Traditionally the stability of phraseological units was identified with their reproducibility in speech as ready-made units. A.V. Kunin made an attempt to give a scientific definition of stability and to define the difference between the stability of phraseological units and the stability of word-combinations of non-phraseological character.

There are structural-semantic stability (the stability of usage), the stability of meaning and lexical components, morphological stability, and syntactical stability. The whole complex of all these kinds of stability results in the stability of phraseological level and characteristic only of phraseological units.

When defining a phraseological unit he also emphasises the fact of their structural divisibility (структурная раздельнооформленность) being either usual (узуальная) or occasional (окказициональная). The usual structural divisibility may be of morphological or syntactical character. Morphological one is evident when one of the elements is subjected to morphological character, e.g., in the following sentences the usage of the verbal component in one of its word-forms testifies to the morphological devisibility of the phraseological unit to show the white feather [ I can’t blame anyone who shows the white feather. He showed the white feather. Never before had he shown the white feather. There were caricatures of three persons showing the white feather ]. Syntactical divisibility is evident in syntactic transformations or inversion of elements [ to bear a cross: That is the cross I have to bear ]. The occasional structural divisibility is a possibility to insert a word between the elements of the phraseological unit [ to be in hot water - My friend is probabl y in very hot water now ].

The third important feature of a phraseological unit, according to A.V.Kunin, is fully or partially transferred meaning. When speaking about phraseological meaning, we should bear in mind two kinds of transference of meaning: metaphorical [ children in the wood: простаки, a dog in the manger: собака на сене ] and metonymical [ a bed of roses, beer and skittles, black bottle ]

When giving the structural-semantic classification of phraseological units, A.V.Kunin views the character of speech functions of phraseological units as the main criterion of division. Taking into consideration the possibility of variation of the phraseological units he singles out four structural semantic classes: nominative, nominative-communicative, interjectional, communicative phraseological units.

Nominative phraseological units denote objects, phenomena actions, states, qualities and functions as their name [ a bull in a China shop ]; nominative-communicative units function as names on the first hand, on the other hand, they can form a sentence [ to break the ice: The ice is broken.]; interjectional units express feelings and emotions [ By George! Draw it mild. ]. Communicative phraseological units have the structure of simple and complex sentences, and comprise either proverbs or sayings. A proverb as distinct from a saying, has some general didactic sense expressing a moral lesson or a clever thought [ Appearances are deceptive. No pains, no gains ]. Sayings are evaluative expressions denoting neither moral, nor wisdom [ The fat is in the fire. That cat won’t jump. ]

From the semantic point of view A.V.Kunin divides all phraseological units into 4 classes: phraseological units having fully transferred integral meaning, or idioms [ a break in the clouds ]; phraseological units with disjunctive integral meaning having variable components used in their direct meanings [ to have smb’s blood on one’s hand ]; phraseological units with partially transferred meaning [ grim-room ]; phraseological units with disjunctive partially transferred meaning [ to fit smb like wax ].

M.McCarthy divides multi-word units into idioms and binominals (occasionally trinominals). He says, that idioms vary from being opaque in their meaning [to kick the bucket contains no clues as to its idiomatic meaning of to die ], to being semi-opaque [ to pass the buck can be paraphrased as to pass responsibility ], to being relatively transparent [ to see the light in the meaning to understand ]; if we look at the relationship between opacity of meaning and fixedness of form, we find that even quite transparent phrases are often fixed in their syntax [ to talk politics ]. Binominals are pairs (or trios) of words which display fixed membership and sequence and which, like idioms, should be treated as single vocabulary items [ back to front, ladies and gentlemen, sick and tired; cool, calm, and collected ].

A.Alexander identifies a whole series of fixed items regularly used in conversation, including gambits [ first of all; let’s face it ], links [ that’s reminds me; another thing ], responders [ I guessed as much; you must be joking], and closers [ nice talking to you; I’d better go now ].

J.M.Sinclair suggested «the idiom principle», according to which the use of ready-made forms may well be organising principle in language production while the construction of free phrases may form a less important part of oral production than we think.

Поиск по сайту: