Фразеологія як підсистема мови. Деякі проблеми діахронічного підходу

Introduction

In about the past twenty years, the interest in phraseology has grown considerably. While the general linguist’s view of phraseology before that time can probably be caricatured as ‘idiom researchers and lexicographers classifying and researching various kinds of fairly frozen idiomatic expressions’, this view has thankfully changed. By now, the issues of identifying and classifying phraseologisms as well as integrating them into theoretical research and practical application has a much more profound influence on researches and their agendas in many different sub-disciplines as well as language learning, acquisition, and teaching, natural language processing etc. However, this influence is often not fully recognized or reflected terminologically. This is not only indesirable because one can often not quickly recognize the domains where research on phraseology has left its marks.

In linguistics, phraseology is the study of set or fixed expressions, such as idioms, phrasal verbs, and other types of multi-word lexical units (often collectively referred to as phrasemes), in which the component parts of the expression take on a meaning more specific than or otherwise not predictable from the sum of their meanings when used independently. For example, ‘Dutch auction’ is composed of the words Dutch ‘pertaining to the Netherlands’ and auction ‘a public sale, in which goods are sold to the highest bidder’, but its meaning is not ‘a sale in the Netherlands where goods are sold to the highest bidder’. Instead, the phrase has a conventionalized meaning referring to any auction where, instead of rising, the prices fall.

The purpose of research is to identify the role of phraseology as a subsystem of language, based on a comprehensive study of theoretical and practical problems.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to study the following objectives:

1. to consider theoretical aspects of phraseology;
2. to analyze classical approaches to phraseology.

The subject of research is phraseology as a subsystem of language and problems of the diachronic approach. The object is the process of formation of word combinations in their nominative and communicative-functional aspects, as well as description of phraseological derivation - the formation of new meanings of words based on the values phraseologism.

Practical value: the results of this research can be used in theory and practice

of English language, literature, translation, scientific conferences and debates etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF PHRASEOLOGY

 

1.1.The notion of phraseology

 

Phraseology is a scholarly approach to language which developed in the twentieth century. It took its start when Charles Bally's notion of ‘locutions phraseologiques’ entered Russian lexicology and lexicography in the 1930’s and 1940’s and was subsequently developed in the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. From the late 1960’s it established itself in (East) German linguistics but was also sporadically approached in English linguistics. The earliest English adaptations of phraseology are by Weinreich (1969) within the approach of transformational grammar, Arnold (1973), and Lipka (1992 [1974]. In Great Britain as well as in other Western European countries, phraseology has been developed over the last twenty years. The activities of the European Society of Phraseology (EUROPHRAS) and the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX) with their regular conventions and publications attest to the prolific European interest in phraseology. Bibliographies of recent studies on English and general phraseology are included in Welte (1990) and specially collected in Cowie & Howarth (1996) whose bibliography is reproduced and continued on the internet and provides a rich source of the most recent publications in the field.

While the notion of phraseology is a very widespread concept, just as with other linguistic concepts, different authors define it differently, sometimes do not provide a clear-cut definition, or conflate several terms that many scholars prefer to distinguish [1, 4]. However, a closer comparative look at the vast majorities of studies that exist allows for identifying a set of parameters that are typically implicated in phraseological research.

In general, the notion of phraseology can be regarded in several aspects:

1. the nature of the elements involved in a phraseologism;
2. the number of elements involved in a phraseologism;
3. the number of times an expression must be observed before it counts as a phraseologism;
4. the permissible distance between the elements involved in a phraseologism;
5. the degree of lexical and syntactic flexibility of the elements involved;
6. the role that semantic unity and semantic non-compositionality / non-predictability play in the definition.

In sum, a phraseologism is defined as the co-occurrence of a form or a lemma of a lexical item and one or more additional linguistic elements of various kinds which functions as one semantic unit in a clause or sentence and whsoe frequency of co-occurrence is larger than expected on the basis of chance.

The range of phenomena regarded as phraseologisms is very large. An example from the inflexible end of the continuum of phraseologisms is the largely fixed expression to run amok, which can be analyzed with respect to the six above criteria as follows:

−nature of the elements: words;

−number of elements: two;

−frequency of occurrence: the two parts of the expression co-occur more often than expected by chance: in the British National Corpus World Edition (BNC WE), any form of to run and amok occur in 38,088 and 43 of all 6,051,206 sentence units (lines beginning with "<s n=") respectively; thus, one would expect 0.27 within-sentence unit co-occurrences, but one actually obtains 40;3

−distance of elements: the two parts of the phraseologism usually co-occur adjacently (in all but one case, where dangerously intervenes);

−flexibility of the elements: to run can occur in various morphological forms, but amok can apparently not be preposed;

−semantics: to run amok functions as one semantic unit, meaning roughly 'to behave violently and uncontrollably'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2. Phraseological units and their classification

Phraseology is a branch of lexicology studying phraseological units (set expressions, praseologisms, or idioms (in foreign linguistics). Phraseological units differ from free word-groups semantically and structurally: 1) they convey a single concept and their meaning is idiomatic, i.e. it is not a mere total of the meanings of their components; 2) they are characterized by structural invariability (no word can be substituted for any component of a phraseological unit without destroying its sense (to have a bee in one’s bonnet (not cap or hat); 3) they are not created in speech but used as ready-made units. Unlike a word, a phraseological unit can be divided into separately structured elements and transformed syntactically (On the instant he was thinking how natural and unaffected her manner was now that the ice between them had been broken. (Th. Dreiser, ‘An American Tragedy’).

Phraseological units are classified in accordance with several criteria.

In the classification proposed by acad. Vinogradov phraseological units are classified according to the semantic principle, and namely to the degree of motivation of meaning, i.e. the relationship between the meaning of the whole unit and the meaning of its components. Three groups are distinguished: phraseological fusions (сращения), phraseological unities (единства), phraseological combinations (сочетания).

1. Phraseological fusions are non-motivated. The meaning of the whole is not deduced from the meanings of the components: to kiss the hare’s foot (опаздывать), to kick the bucket (сыграть в ящик), the king’s picture (фальшивая монета)

2. Phraseological units are motivated through the image expressed in the whole construction, the metaphores on which they are based are transparent: to turn over a new leaf, to dance on a tight rope.

3. Phraseological combinations are motivated; one of their components is used in its direct meaning while the other can be used figuratively: bosom friend, to get in touch with.

 

Prof. Smirnitsky classifies phraseological units according to the functional principle. Two groups are distinguished: phraseological units and idioms.

Phraseological units are neutral, non-metaphorical when compared to idioms: get up, fall asleep, to take to drinking. Idioms are metaphoric, stylistically coloured: to take the bull by the horns, to beat about the bush, to bark up the wrong tree.

 Structurally prof. Smirnitsky distinguishes one-summit (one-member) and many-summit (two-member, three-member, etc.) phraseological units, depending on the number of notional words: against the grain (не по душе), to carry the day (выйти победителем), to have all one’s eggs in one basket.

Prof. Amosova classifies phraseological units according to the type of context. Phraseological units are marked by fixed (permanent) context, which can’t be changed: French leave (but not Spanish or Russian). Two groups are singled out: phrasemes and idioms.

1. Phrasemes consist of two components one of which is phraseologically bound, the second serves as the determining context: green eye (ревнивый взгляд), green hand (неопытный работник), green years (юные годы), green wound (незажившая рана), etc.

2. Idioms are characterized by idiomaticity: their meaning is created by the whole group and is not a mere combination of the meanings of its components: red tape (бюрократическая волокита), mare’s nest (нонсенс), to pin one’s heart on one’s sleeve (не скрывать своих чувств).

Some linguists (N.N. Amosova, J. Casares) don’t include proverbs and sayings into their classifications. Others (I.V. Arnold, A.V. Koonin, V.V. Vinogradov) do, on the grounds that 1) like in phraseological units their components are never changed 2) phraseological units are often formed on the basis of proverbs and sayings (A drowning man will clutch at a straw → to clutch at a straw).

 

 

1.3.Conclusions for Chapter I

The role phraseology has played in linguistic theory is quite varied. On the one hand, it is varied because theoretical frameworks or approaches in linguistics differ widely in terms of the importance attached to phraseologisms. On the other hand, the importance that phraseology can play in some framework of course also crucially depends on how phraseologisms are defined.

Phraseological Unit (also called idiom), a word group with a fixed lexical composition and grammatical structure; its meaning, which is familiar to native speakers of the given language, is generally figurative and cannot be derived from the meanings of the phraseological unit’s component parts. The meanings of phraseological units are the result of the given language’s historical development.

There are several types of phraseological units, as follows. In phraseological concretions the literal and figurative meanings are totally unrelated, as in tochit’ liasy (“to whittle a piece of linden wood”; figuratively, “to chatter”) or sobaku s”est’ (“to know inside out”; literally, “to eat a dog”). Other phraseological units have a meaning that is derived from the meaning of the component parts, as in plyt’ po techeniiu (“to flow with the current”). Phraseological collocations include a word or words with a meaning that is both literal and figurative, as in glubokaia tishina (“profound silence”). Another type of phraseological unit is the idiomatic expression, a word group whose structure and meaning are fixed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. CLASSICAL APPROACHES TO PHRASEOLOGY

 

2.1.Synchronic approach and its distinguishing features

The attempts to classify phraseological units were undertaken. Vinogradov proposed his semantic classification which was based on the degree of cohesion between the components of phraseological units. He classified them into 3 groups:

1) Phraseological combinations / collocations. They are motivated – we can deduce the meaning knowing the meaning of the words of the phrase, one word having the transfer of meaning (“to have lunch”).

2) Phraseological unities – motivated but the components’ meanings are not direct (not all of them), the metaphore being slight and transparent (“to lose one’s head”).

3) Phraseological fusions – non-motivated word-combinations. One can’t deduce the whole meaning with the help of the components. Full transfer of meaning occurs (“white elephant”).

Structural classification – according to the key word of the phrase:

1) Verbal;

2) Substantive;

3) Adjectival:

4) Adverbial;

5) Interjectional.

Classification made by Smirnitsky:

• one-summit units (phraseological units with one meaningful part) – phrasal verbs, verbal, adverbial phrases (“to be tired of”);
• multi-summit units (more than one meaningful part) – attributive substantive, verbal, adverbial (“white lie”).

Communicative classification by Kunin.

1) idioms – stable word-groups characterized by complete or partial transfer of meaning;

2) semi-idioms;

3) phraseological units;

4) communicative phraseological units (proverbs, sayings).

We put all the phraseological units in the way that in the first group the degree of cohesion is the weekest. 1) Phraseological units of the 1st group are motivated. It means that we can deduce the meaning of the phraseological units from direct meaning and some components which possess transfer of meaning: to have lunch, boozing friends. 2) These groups are also motivated, but the meanings of components are not in their direct meaning or not all of them. The metaphor on which this shift of meaning is based is transparent: last drop, to lose one’s head. It’s very difficult to put the line between the 1st and the 2nd points. 3) The same between the 2nd and the 3rd, but in the 3rd it’s easier to find examples. Fusions are word combinations which are not motivated, we can’t deduce the meaning of the whole from the meaning of the components, and the semantic complexity is full – so, full transfer of meaning: Jack of all trades, white elephant, red tape.

There is also a structural classification, where all the units are divided into key words of these units (belonging to some part of speech: 1) Verbal: to burts into laughing, to pull one’s legs; 2) Substantive: red tape, white dove; 3) Adjective: as busy as bee, as cool as cucumber; 4) Adverbeal: once upon a time, every now and then; 5) Interjection: for God’s sake! By George!

Scholars try to combine both Structural and Semantic classifications. Professor Smernitsky created his own classification. He differentiated words into neutral and coloured. He divided all phraseological units into: 1) one-summit units; 2) two- or all-summit units.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2. Peculiarities of the diachronic approach

The diachronic aspect of phraseology has scarcely been investigated. Just a few points of interest may be briefly reviewed in connection with the origin of phraseological units and the ways they appear in language. It is assumed that almost all phrases can be traced back to free word-groups which in the course of the historical development of the English language have acquired semantic and grammatical inseparability. It is observed that free word-groups may undergo the process of grammaticalisation or lexicalisation.

Cases of grammaticalisation may be illustrated by the transformation of free word-groups composed of the verb have, a noun (pronoun) and Participle II of some other verb into the grammatical form — the Present Perfect in Modern English. The degree of semantic and grammatical inseparability in this analytical word-form is so high that the component have seems to possess no lexical meaning of its own.

The term lexicalisation implies that the word-group under discussion develops into a word-equivalent, i.e. a phraseological unit or a compound word. These two parallel lines of lexicalisation of free word-groups can be illustrated by the diachronic analysis of, e.g., the compound word instead and the phraseological unit in spite (of). Both of them can be traced back to structurally identical free phrases.

There are some grounds to suppose that there exists a kind of interdependence between these two ways of lexicalisation of free word-groups which makes them mutually exclusive. It is observed, for example, that compounds are more abundant in certain parts of speech, whereas phraseological units are numerically predominant in others. Thus, e.g., phraseological units are found in great numbers as verb-equivalents whereas compound verbs are comparatively few. This leads us to assume that lexicalisation of free word-groups and their transformation into words or phraseological units is governed by the general line of interdependence peculiar to each individual part of speech, i.e. the more compounds we find in a certain part of speech the fewer phraseological units we are likely to encounter in this class of words.

Very little is known of the factors active in the process of lexicalisation of free word-groups which results in the appearance of phraseological units. This problem may be viewed in terms of the degree of motivation. We may safely assume that a free word-group is transformed into a phraseological unit when it acquires semantic inseparability and becomes synchronically non-motivated.

The process of lexicalisation may be observed in Modern English too. The noun yesterday, e.g., in the novels by Thomas Hardy occurs as a free word-group and is spelled with a break yester day.

The following may be perceived as the main causes accounting for the loss of motivation of free word-groups:

When one of the components of a word-group becomes archaic or drops out of the language altogether the whole word-group may become completely or partially non-motivated. For example, lack of motivation in the word-group kith and kin may be accounted for by the fact that the member-word kith (OE. cÿth) dropped out of the language altogether except as the component of the phraseological unit under discussion. This is also observed in the phraseological unit to and fro, and some others.

When as a result of a change in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word some of its meanings disappear and can be found only in certain collocations. The noun mind, e.g., once meant ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’ and this meaning survives in the phrases to have a mind to do smth., to change one’s mind, etc.

When a free word-group used in professional speech penetrates into general literary usage, it is often felt as non-motivated. To pull (the) strings (wires), e.g., was originally used as a free word-group in its direct meaning by professional actors in puppet shows. In Modern English, however, it has lost all connection with puppet-shows and therefore cannot be described as metaphorically motivated. Lack of motivation can also be observed in the phraseological unit to stick to one’s guns which can be traced back to military English, etc.

Sometimes extra-linguistic factors may account for the loss of motivation, to show the white feather — ‘to act as a coward’, e.g., can be traced back to the days when cock-fighting was popular. A white feather in a gamecock’s plumage denoted bad breeding and was regarded as a sign of cowardice. Now that cock-fighting is no longer a popular sport, the phrase is felt as non-motivated.1

When a word-group making up part of a proverb or saying begins to be used as a self-contained unit it may gradually become non-motivated if its connection with the corresponding proverb or saying is not clearly perceived. A new broom, e.g., originates as a component of the saying new brooms sweep clean. New broom as a phraseological unit may be viewed as non-motivated because the meaning of the whole is not deducible from the meaning of the components. Moreover, it seems grammatically and functionally self-contained and inseparable too. In the saying quoted above the noun broom is always used in the plural; as a member- word of the phraseological unit it is mostly used in the singular. The phraseological unit a new broom is characterised by functional inseparability. In the saying new brooms sweep clean the adjective new functions as an attribute to the noun brooms, in the phraseological unit a new broom (e.g. Well, he is a new broom!) the whole word-group is functionally inseparable.

When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or the Bible begins to be used as a self-contained unit, it may also lose all connection with the original context and as a result of this become non- motivated. The phraseological unit the green-eyed monster (jealousy) can be easily found as a part of the quotation from Shakespeare “It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on” (Othello, II, i. 165). In Modern English, however, it functions as a non-motivated self-contained phraseological unit and is also used to denote the T.V. set. Achilles heel — ‘the weak spot in a man’s circumstances or character’ can be traced back to mythology, but it seems that in Modern English this word-group functions as a phraseological unit largely because most English speakers do not connect it with the myth from which it was extracted.

 

3. Conclusions for chapter II

Summing it up, it is important to note, that depending in what aspects the vocabulary terms are studied, we can distinguish synchronic and diachronic phraseology.