Classification of the phraseological units

One of the most problematic items in the classification of phras. un. — to see the borderline between their types. The classifications are numerous.

I byViktor Vladim. Vinogradov — based upon the motivation [əu] (the degree of motivation) of a unit — the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole & the meanings of its components. The degree of motivation is closely connected with the stability, integrity & semantic unity of the expressions.

1) phraseological fusions (слияния, объединения) — the highest stage of blending (сочетания) together — semantically indivisible units; the meaning can’t be directly derived from the meanings of its componenets:

to pull one’s leg, to be cut off with a shilling

king’s picture — фальшивая монетка

by hook or by crook — не мытьём, так катаньем

2) phraseological unities (единства) — > numerous, possess some degree of motivation. The emotional quality is based on the metaphorical image created by the whole. They may have synonymic substitution:

to stand / stick to one’s guns—не сдавать позиций, оставаться до конца верным

своим убеждениям, настоять на своём;

to make a mountain out of a mole(дамба)

to take a new leaf, to take a bull by the horns

3) phraseological combinations — not only motivated but contain one component in its direct meaning, while the other is used metaphorically:

to meet the requirements — столкнуться с условиями, нуждами

its mobility is much greater than of the previous types. There are substitutions ~ don’t destroy the meaning of the metaphorical element: to meet the necessity / the demand—substitution isn’t synonymical & the meaning of the whole is changed while the meaning of the verb is kept intact (нетронутый). Still they possess a certain degree of semantic inseparability:

to take the risk of; to pay compliments.

The weakness of the classification — carelessness (нечёткость), fuzziness (размытость) of borderlines between phras. fusions & phras. unities, on the one hand, & phras. unities & phras. combinations, on the other hand. Determination of the degree of motivation proves to be absolutely subjective & this supposes different conclusions.

II classification by Nat. Nik. Amosova — based on the contextual approach: phras. un. — units of fixed context (opposed to free context) — a context characterized by a specific & unchanging sequence of definite lexical components, & a peculiar semantic relationship between these. There are phrasemes & idioms.

~ phrasemes — always binary phras. un-s.: one of their components has a phraseologically bound meaning (1), the other serves as the determining context (2):

to grindone’s teeth — скрежетать зубами;

(1) (2)

(растирать, перемалывать)

to knit one’s brows — хмурить брови;

(1) (2)

(сращивать, срастить)

small hours — первые часы после полуночи;

small talk — пустой, бессодержательный, светский разговор.

~ idioms — totally non-motivated, the meaning of the whole is created by the unit as a whole though every element keeps its usual value:

a mare’s nest—иллюзия, нечто несуществующее

mare — monosemantic & doesn’t need any determining context

nest — polysemantic: 2) выводок (metonymy); 3) уютный уголок, гнёздышко(metaphor);

4) притон

None of these meanings is connected with “mare” & they don’t occur together in a free phrase. Both w-s keep their usual meanings while their combination possesses a special meaning.

to pay a visit / call / compliments / respects / addresses (to smb.) can’t fit into the scheme suggested by this author, because the determining minimum on ~ the meaning of “pay” depends isn’t constant. On the other hand, the combination isn’t free either, ΄cause the group of nouns possible as the 2^nd component isn’t limited by the character of the designata (обозначаемого) but by the stylistic tradition. It’s impossible to say: to pay seeing off / celebrations / greetings.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11