Criterion of stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation

Free word-groups vs. set-expressions

Scholars suggest the following criteria for distinguishing between free word-groups and set-phrases.

It is assumed that unlike constituents of free word-groups that may vary according to communication needs, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations. For example, the constituent red in the free word-group red flower may be substituted for by any other adjective denoting color, without essentially changing the denotational meaning of the word-group under consideration (a flower of a certain color). But in the phraseological unit red tape (meaning “bureaucratic methods”) no substitution like this is possible, as a change of the adjective would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group.

2. Criterion of function. Phraseological units function as word-equivalents,

the denotational meaning belongs to the word group as a single semantically inseparable unit and grammatical meaning i.e. the part-of-speech meaning is felt as belonging to the word-group as a whole irrespective of the part-of-speech meaning of the component words. (cf.: the free word group a long day and the phraseological unit in the long run).

3. Criterion of context. The point of this criterion is in the fact that free

word-groups make up variable contexts whereas the essential feature of phraseological units is a fixed context. Thus, in free word-groups small town/ room the adjective small has the meaning “not large” but in the set-phrases small hours the meaning of the word small has nothing to do with the size. It means “early hours from 1 to 4 a.m.”

4. Criterion of idiomaticity. Phraseological units are ready-made phrases

registered in dictionaries while free word-groups are made up spontaneously.

The above is probably the most discussed – and the most controversial – problem in the field of phraseology. 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 other major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word-groups: semantic and structural.

Compare the following examples:

A. Cambridge don: I'm told they're inviting more American professors to this university. Isn't it rather carrying coals to Newcastle?

(To carry coals to Newcastle means "to take something to a place where it is already plentiful and not needed" .)

B. This cargo ship is carrying coal to Liverpool.

The first thing that captures the eye is the semantic difference of the two word-groups consisting of the same essential constituents. In the second sentence the free word-group is carrying coal is used in the direct sense, the word coal standing for real hard, black coal and carry for the plain process of taking something from one place to another. The first context quite obviously has nothing to do either with coal or with transporting it, and the meaning of the whole word-group is something entirely new and far removed from the current meanings of the constituents.

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".

That is what is meant when phraseological units are said to be characterized by semantic unity. 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).

It is this feature that makes phraseological units similar to words: both words and phraseological units possess semantic unity. Yet, words are also characterized by structural unity which phraseological units very obviously lack being combinations of words.

Most Russian scholars today accept the semantic criterion of distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups as the major one and base their research work in the field of phraseology on the definition of a phraseological unit offered by Professor A. V. Koonin, the leading authority on problems of English phraseology in our country: "A phraseological unit is a stable word-group characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning."

The border-line dividing phraseological units with partially changed meanings from the so-called semi-fixed or non-phraseological word-groups (marginal cases) is uncertain and confusing.

The term " idiom ", both in this country and abroad, is mostly applied to phraseological units with completely transferred meanings, that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit does not correspond to the current meanings of the components. There are many scholars who regard idioms as the essence of phraseology and the major focus of interest in phraseology research.

The structural criterion also brings forth pronounced distinctive features characterizing 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.

First of all, restriction in substitution. As a rule, no word can be substituted for any meaningful component of a phraseological unit without destroying its sense (as it has been explained above).

The second type of restriction is the restriction in introducing any additional components into the structure of a phraseological unit.

The third type of structural restrictions in phraseological units is grammatical invariability. A typical mistake with students of English is to use the plural form of fault in the phraseological unit to find fault with somebody (e. g. The teacher always found faults with the boy). Though the plural form in this context is logically well-founded, it is a mistake in terms of the grammatical invariability of phraseological units. A similar typical mistake often occurs in the unit from head to foot (e. g. From head to foot he was immaculately dressed).

Proverbs are different from those phraseological units. The first distinctive feature is the obvious structural dissimilarity. Phraseological units are a kind of ready-made blocks which fit into the structure of a sentence performing a certain syntactical function, more or less as words do (e.g. a) George liked her for she never put on airs (predicate). b) Big bugs like him care nothing about small fry like ourselves, (a) subject, b) prepositional object)). Proverbs, if viewed in their structural aspect, are sentences, and so cannot be used in the way in which phraseological units are used.

In the semantic aspect, proverbs sum up the collective experience of the community. They moralize (Hell is paved with good intentions), give advice (Don't judge a tree by its bark), give warning (// you sing before breakfast, you will cry before night), admonish (Liars should have good memories), criticize (Everyone calls his own geese swans). No phraseological unit ever does any of these things. They do not stand for whole statements as proverbs do but for a single concept. Their function in speech is purely nominative (i. e. they denote an object, an act, etc.). The function of proverbs in speech, though, is communicative (i. e. they impart certain information). The question of whether or not proverbs should be regarded as a subtype of phraseological units and studied together with the phraseology of a language is a controversial one.

Professor A. V. Koonin includes proverbs in his classification of phraseological units and labels them communicative phraseological units. From his point of view, one of the main criteria of a phraseological unit is its stability. If the quotient of phraseological stability in a word-group is not below the minimum, it means that we are dealing with a phraseological unit. The structural type – that is, whether the unit is a combination of words or a sentence – is irrelevant.

The criterion of nomination and communication cannot be applied here either,

says Professor A.V. Koonin, because there are a considerable number of verbal phraseological units which are word-groups (i. e. nominative units) when the verb is used in the Active Voice, and sentences (i. e. communicative units) when the verb is used in the Passive Voice. E. g. to cross (pass) the Rubicon – the Rubicon is crossed {passed); to shed crocodile tears – crocodile tears are shed. Hence, if one accepts nomination as a criterion of referring or not referring this or that unit to phraseology, one is faced with the absurd conclusion that such word-groups, when with verbs in the Active Voice, are phraseological units and belong to the system of the language, and when with verbs in the Passive Voice, are non-phraseological word-groups and do not belong to the system of the language.

One more argument in support of this concept is that there does not seem to exist any rigid border-line between proverbs and phraseological units as the latter rather frequently originate from the former (e.g. the phraseological unit the last straw originated from the proverb The last straw breaks the camel's back; birds of a feather from the proverb Birds of a feather flock together, to catch at a straw (straws) from A drowning man catches at straws). Besides, some proverbs are easily transformed into phraseological units (e.g. Don't put all your eggs in one basket > to put all one's eggs in one basket; don't cast pearls before swine > to cast pearls before swine.

5.2. Different approaches to the classification of phraseological units. So, a phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features, which can therefore be approached from different points of view. Hence, there exist a considerable number of different classofocations devised by defferent scholars and based on different principles.

Semantic approach stresses the importance of idiomaticity, functional – syntactic inseparability, contextual – stability of context combined with idiomaticity.

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 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; to sink or swim — to fail or succeed; 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; to sail under false colors – to pretend to be what one is not; to pose as a friend and, at the same time, have hostile intentions; to show one's colors — to betray one's real character or intentions; to strike one's colors — to surrender, give in, admit one is beaten; 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 account the linguistic characteristic features of the phraseological units. In this respect a considerable contribution was made by Russian scholars, especially by Academician V.V. Vinogradov. His classification system of phraseological units 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, which is of immense importance.

In his classification founded on the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit (its motivation) V.V. Vinogradov developed some points first advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally. 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, Vinogradov classifies phraseological units into three classes: phraseological combinations, unities and fusions.

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).

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 gun crew 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 (s to behave in a superior, 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).

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; 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.).

It is obvious that this 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 labeled 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.

1. Verbal: 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;

2. Substantive: dog's life, cat-and-dog life, calf love, white lie, tall order, birds of a feather, birds of passage, red tape, brown study;

3. Adjectival: 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;

4. Adverbial: high and low, by hook or by crook, for love or money, in cold blood, in the dead of night, between the devil and the deep sea, to the bitter end, by a long chalk.

5. Interjectional: my God! by Jove! by George! goodness gracious! good Heavens!

Professor A.I. 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 surprised);

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 centers 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 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 characterized 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.

The classification system of phraseological units suggested by Professor A. V. Koonin is the latest outstanding 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 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.

5.3. Ways of forming phraseologisms. 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, pointing out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group:

a) Most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units

by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups (e.g. launching pad, to link up);

b) A large group of phraseological units was formed from free word-groups

by transforming their meaning (e.g. granny farm, Troyan horse);

c) Phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration (e.g. a sad sack, culture vulture, fudge and nudge);

d) They can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections (My aunt! Hear, hear!);

e) By means of distorting a word group (e.g. odds and ends);

f) By using archaisms (e.g. in brown study);

g) By using a sentence in a different sphere of life (e.g. that cock won’t fight);

h) By using some unreal image (e.g. to have butterflies in the stomach, to have green fingers);

i) By using expressions of writers or politicians in everyday life ( e.g. corridors of power, American dream, the winds of change ).

Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit. They are:

a) conversion: to vote with one’s feet → vote with one’s feet;

b) changing the grammar form: make hay while the sun shines → to make hay while the sun shines;

c) analogy: curiosity killed the cat → care killed the cat;

d) contrast: acute surgery → cold surgery;

e) shortening of proverbs and sayings: you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear → a sow’s ear;

f) borrowing phraseological units from other languages, either as translation loans: living space (German), to take the bull by the horns (Latin); or by means of phonetic borrowings: sotto voce (Italian), corpse d’elite (French).

Дата добавления: 2014-01-07