Mamun -university roman -german philology english department

CHAPTER 1. Phraseology

1. Phraseology as a linguistic discipline

Phraseology is a relatively new branch of linguistics which attracts the attention of an increasing number of scholars. The vocabulary of any developed language is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units which are not created by the speaker in the process of speech but used as ready-made units. It was a long time ago that linguists became aware of the existence in the language of special largerthan-word units: word-groups consisting of two or more words whose combination is integrated as a unit with a specialized meaning of the whole. Sharl Bally, the Swiss linguist of French origin, is a creator of the theory of Phraseology. He thinks that there are two main groups of combinations: free word-combinations and phraseological units, components of which are constantly used in the given combinations for expressing the same thoughts, lost their initial meaning. Bally introduced the term “Phraseology” as a section of stylistics, studying connected word-combinations. But this term is used as: 1. Choice of words, form of expression; 2. Language, style, syllable; 3. Expressions, word-combinations. The choice arrangement of words and phrases in the expression of ideas, manner or style of expression; the particular form of speech or diction which characterizes a write, literary production, language etc. The analysis of special literature during the last decades shows that the majority of linguists consider the coincidence of semantic structure, grammatical (or syntactical) organization and componential (lexeme) structure the main criteria in defining the types of interlanguage phraseological conformities/disparities with the undoubted primacy of semantic structure. Comparing the three approaches discussed above (semantic, functional, and contextual) we have ample ground to conclude that have very much in common as, the main criteria of phraseological units appear to be essentially the same, i.e. stability and idiomaticity or lack of motivation. It should be noted however that these criteria as elaborated in the three approaches are sufficient mainly to single out extreme cases: highly idiomatic non-variable and free (or variable) word- groups.
Thus red tape, mare’s nest, etc. According to the semantic approach belong to phraseology and are described as fusions as they are completely non-motivated. According to the functional approach they are also regarded as phraseological units because of their grammatical (syntactic) inseparability and because they function, in speech as word-equivalents. According to the contextual approach red tape, mare’s nest, etc. make up a group of phraseological units referred to as idioms because of the impossibility of any change in the ‘fixed context’ and their semantic inseparability. The status of the bulk of word-groups however cannot be decided with certainty with the help of these criteria because as a rule we have to deal not with соmp1ete idiomaticity and stability but with a certain degree of these distinguishing features of phraseological units. No objective criteria of the degree of idiomaticity and stability have as yet been suggested. Thus, e.g., to win a victory according to the semantic approach is a phraseological combination because it is almost completely motivated and allows of certain variability to win, to gain, a victory. According to the functional approach it is not a phraseological unit as the degree of semantic and grammatical inseparability is insufficient for the word-group to function as a word-equivalent. Small hours according to the contextual approach it is literal meaning. If however we classify it proceeding from the functional approach is a word-groups which are partially motivated is decided differently depending on which of the criteria of phraseological units is applied. One of the most important and difficult problems of phraseology is how to distinguish between free word-groups and phraseological units. It is necessary to point out the criteria of phraseological units because they have certain features in common with free word-groups and compound words.
The criteria offered by linguists are ideomaticity, stability, word-equivalency. We decided to stop on the criteria described by A. V. Kunin in his researches. The first criterion is the structural separateness, or divisibility of phraseological units into separate structural elements. Structural separateness helps to distinguish phraseological units from compound words. In the case of compound words there is a common grammatical form for elements of this word. For example, the grammatical change in the word shipwreck implies that inflections are added to both elements of the word simultaneously – ship-wreak-( ), ship-wreak-(s), while in the word-group the wreck of a ship each element can change its grammatics form independently from the other – (the) wreck-( ) of the ship-s, (the) wreck-s of the ship-s. Like in word-groups, in phraseological units an- component may be changed grammatically, but these changes are rather few, limited and occasional. For example, a phraseological unit a hard nut to crack (a problem difficult to find an answer to) can be used in the following forms: they are hard nuts to crack, it is a harder nut b crack. The next important criterion of phraseological units is stability. A. V. Kunin distinguishes several aspects of stability: Stability of use means that phraseological units are introduced in speech ready-made and not created each time anew like free word-groups Stability of use proves that a phraseological unit like a word is a language unit. Phraseological units are firstly the individual creations and later the” become common property. For example, Shakespeare’s writings play a great role in the life of English-speaking communities, and many phraseological units, first being Shakespeare’s individual creations, became world’s value and joined the stock of phraseological units of the English language, such as: cakes and ale (material comforts), give the devil his due (give back what you owe), neither rhyme nor reason (without logic, order, or planning), to one’s heart’s content (as much as one wants, to one’s entire satisfaction, without limitation), et cetera.
Lexico-semantic stability means that components of phraseological units are either irreplaceable or can be partly replaced in some cases because the meaning of phraseological unit is understood as a whole and not related to the meaning of individual words. This type of stability is of great help in stating the semantic difference between free word-groups and phraseological units. For example, one cannot change the noun component in the phraseological unit to give the sack (to dismiss from work) without destroying its phraseological meaning. In the following examples one of the components can be replaced by its synonym: to tread/walk on air (to be delighted), a skeleton in the cupboard/closet (a family secret), not to lift/raise/stir a finger (not to help).
Morphological stability means that the components of phraseological units are restricted as to the usage of morphological forms. For example, noun components in phraseological units are used either only in the singular (chase the wild goose (to strive for the impossible), play a lone hand (to act alone)) or in the plural (small potatoes (trifles)). Although in some cases changing is possible: to be in deep water (s), as happy as a king (kings). Syntactic stability is stability of the order of the components of a phraseological unit. For example, changing of the order of the components in the following phraseological units: cakes and ale (material comforts), bread and butter (simple and wholesome) results in destruction of phraseological units. But there might be variations within syntactic stability – grammatical and stylistic inversion. To grammatical inversion belongs transformation of passivisation, i.e. conversion of a verbal phraseological unit from active into passive voice: break the ice (do or say something to remove or reduce social tension) – the ice is broken; to stylistic inversion belongs the change of the word order for the sake of expressivity: bear one’s cross (suffer from responsibility as a condition of life or for a period) – What a cross he has to bear! So, speaking about the criterion of stability we may draw the following conclusion. Phraseological units as a rule possess a high degree of stability, although their stability is relative. There are phraseological units with the highest level of stability, allowing no changes; phraseological units with medium degree of stability, allowing minimal changes; phraseological units with low level of stability, allowing higher changes. Accordingly, the criterion of stability is criticized by many linguists as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from free 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, for example, red flower, heavy weight, et cetera. If the combined lexical meaning of a word-group is not deducible from the meanings of its constituent components, such a word-group is lexically non-motivated. So, another criterion of phraseological units is ideomaticity, or lack of motivation. Phraseological units are partially motivated or non- motivated (idiomatic). To partially motivated phraseological units belong examples like a dog in the manger (a person who selfishly prevents others from using or enjoying something which he keeps for himself, though he cannot use or enjoy it) and a great number of others. The phraseological unit to kick the bucket, for example, is non-motivated. The lack of motivation can be explained by the fact that in the course of time the association between each particular meaning of the component lexemes and the meaning of the whole word combination was faded and lost. There is another criterion of phraseological units that is the criterion of function. Idiomaticity and stability of phraseological units bring them closer to words. A. I. Smirnitsky considered phraseological units to be word equivalents because phraseological units like words are introduced into soeech ready-made and function in speech as single words. Phraseological units and words have identical syntactic functions and they are speech ready-made and function in speech as single words. Phraseological units and words have identical syntactic functions and they are interchangeable in certain cases. For example, we can use the words to rejoice and the sun instead of the phraseological units to throw one’s hat in the air and the eye of the day. Phraseological units like words have synonyms. For instance, the following phraseological synonyms convey the meaning “to have not enough money for one’s needs”: to be in low waters, to be on the rocks, to be on one’s beam ends, to be as poor as a church mouse, to be hard up, to be on one’s uppers. Phraseological units like words have also antonyms: a good mixer – a bad mixer, bad (foul) language, unparliamentary language – parliamentary language. Phraseological units like words though in a much smaller degree are characterized by polysemy and homonymy. Although words and phraseological units have much in common, they are different language units, the main difference between them is structural, that is phraseological units are characterized by structural separateness, while words are marked by structural integrity. Thus, phraseological units occupy an intermediate position between words and free word-groups. Being intermediate units, they have features of words, on the one hand, and features of free word-groups, on the other. That is why it is difficult to distinguish between them. Moreover, these difficulties are enhanced by the fact that some properties of phraseological units (such as idiomaticity, stability, word-equivalency) are expressed in different phraseological units in different degree. These difficulties are revealed in various classifications of phraseological units.