By phraseology I mean the branch of linguistics dealing with
stable word- combinations characterized by certain transference of meaning.
Despite differences of opinion, most authors agree upon some
points concerning the distinctive features of phraseological units, such as:
1. Integrity (or transference) of meaning means that
none of the idiom components is separately associated with any referents of
objective reality, and the meaning of the whole unit cannot be deduced from the
meanings of its components;
2. Stability (lexical and grammatical) means that no
lexical substitution is possible in an idiom in comparison with free or variable
word-combinations (with an exception of some cases when such substitutions are
made by the author intentionally). The experiments conducted in the 1990s
showed that, the meaning of an idiom is not exactly identical to its literal
paraphrase given in the dictionary entry. That is why we may speak about
lexical flexibility of many units if they are used in a creative manner.
Lexical stability is usually accompanied by grammatical stability which
prohibits any grammatical changes;
3.
Separability means that the structure of an idiom is not something indivisible,
certain modifications are possible within certain boundaries. Here we meet with
the so-called lexical and grammatical variants. To illustrate this point I
shall give some examples: "as hungry as a wolf (as a hunter)",
"as safe as a house (houses)" in English, «как (будто, словно, точно) в
воду опушенный», «оседлать своего (любимого) конька», «раскидывать умом (мозгами) Раскинуть (пораскинуть) умом (мозгами)» in
Russian.
4. Expressivity and emotiveness means that idioms are
also characterized by stylistic colouring. In other words, they evoke emotions
or add expressiveness.
On the whole phraseological units, even if they present a
certain pattern, do not generate new phrases. They are unique.
Interlanguage comparison, the aim of which is the exposure
of phraseological conformities, forms the basis of a number of theoretical and
applied trends of modern linguistic research, including the theory and practice
of phraseography. But the question of determining the factors of interlanguage
phraseological conformities as the main concept and the criterion of choosing
phraseological equivalents and analogues as the aspect concepts is still at
issue.
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 m 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.
There is still another approach to the problem of
phraseology in which an attempt is made to overcome the shortcoming of the
phraseological theories discussed above. The main features of this new approach
which is now more or less universally accepted by Soviet linguists are as
follows:1
1. Phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch
of linguistics and, not as a part of lexicology.
2. Phraseology deals with a phraseological subsystem
of language and not with isolated phraseological units.
3. Phraseology is concerned with all types of set
expressions.
4. Set expressions are divided into three classes:
phraseological units (e.g. red tape, mare's nest, etc.), phraseomatic units
(e.g. win a victory, launch a campaign, etc.) and borderline cases belonging to
the mixed class. The main distinction between the first and the second classes
is semantic: phraseological units have fully or partially transferred meanings
while components of, phraseomatic units are used in their literal meanings.
5. Phraseological and phraseomatic units are not
regarded as word- equivalents but some of them are treated as word correlates.
6. Phraseological and phraseomatic units are set
expressions and their phraseological stability distinguishes them from free
phrases and compound words.
7.
Phraseological and phraseomatic units are made up of words of different degree
of wordness depending on the type of set expressions they are used in. (cf.
e.g. small hours and red tape). Their
structural separateness, an important factor of their stability, distinguishes
them from compound words (cf. E.g. blackbird and black market).
Other aspects of their stability are: stability of use,
lexical stability and semantic stability.
8. Stability of use means that set expressions are
reproduced ready-made and not created in speech. They are not elements of
individual style of speech but language units.
9.
Lexical stability means that the components of set expressions are either
irreplaceable (e.g. red tape, mare's nest) or party replaceable within the
bounds of phraseological or phraseomatic variance: lexical (e.g. a skeleton in
the cupboard – a skeleton in the closet).grammatical (e.g. to be in deep water
– to be in deep waters), positional (e.g. head over ears – over head and ears),
quantitative (e.g. to lead smb a dance- to lead smb a pretty dance), mixed
variants (e.g. raise (stir up) a hornets' nest about one's ears- arouse (stir
up) the nest of hornets).
10. Semantic stability is based on the lexical
stability of set expressions. Even when occasional changes are introduced the
meaning of set expression is preserved. It may only be specified, made more
precise, weakened or strengthened. In other words in spite of all occasional
phraseological and phraseomatic units, as distinguished from free phrases,
remain semantically invariant or are destroyed. For example, the substitution
of the verbal component in the free phrase to raise a question by the verb to
settle (to settle a question) changes the meaning of the phrase, no such change
occurs in to raise (stir up) a hornets' nest about one's ears.
11. An integral part of this approach is a method of
phraseological identification which helps to single out set expressions in
Modern English.
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 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 process of grammaticalization or lexicalization.
Cases of
grammaticalization 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 (e.g. hз hїfde hine) 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 has seems to possess no lexical meaning of its own.
The term
lexicalization 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 lexicalization 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
structurally1 identical free phrases. (cf. OE. In spede and ME. In
despit.)
There are some grounds to suppose that there exists a kind
of interdependence between these two ways of lexicalization 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 lexicalization of free
word-groups and their transformation into words or phraseological units is
governed by 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
lexicalization 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 following may be perceived as the main causes accounting
for the less' of motivation of free word-groups:
a) 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 dropped out of the language altogether except as the component of the
phraseological unit under discussion. This is also observed in the
phraseological unit under discussion.
b) 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.
c) 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 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.
d) When a
word-group making up part of a proverb or saying begins to be used 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 im the plural; as a
member-word of the phraseological unit it mostly used in the singular. The
phraseological unit a new broom is characterized 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.
e) When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology
or the Bible begin 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.
1. The final criterion in the semantic approach is
idiomaticity whereas in the functional approach syntactic inseparability is
viewed as the final test, and in the contextual approach it is stability of
context combined with idiomaticity of word-groups.
2. The concept of idiomaticity is not strictly
defined. The judgement as to idiomaticity is passed sometimes within the
framework of the English language and sometimes from the outside - from the
point of view of the mother tongue of the investigator.
It is suggested here that the term idiomaticity should be
interpreted as an intralingual notion and also that the degree of idiomaticity
should be taken into consideration since between the extreme of complete
motivation and lack of motivation there are numerous intermediate group.
3. Each of the three approaches has its merits and
demerits. The traditional semantic approach points out the essential features
of all kinds of idiomatic phrases as opposed to completely motivated free
word-groups. The functional approach puts forward an objective criterion for
singling out a small group of word-equivalents possessing all the basic
features of words as lexical items. The contextual approach makes the criterion
of stability more exact.
4. All the three approaches are sufficient to single
out the extreme cases: highly idiomatic phraseological units and free
word-groups. The status of the bulk of word-groups possessing different degrees
of idiomaticity cannot be decided with certainty by applying the criteria
available in linguistic science.
5. The distinguishing feature of the new approach is
that phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and not
as a part of lexicology. According to this approach phraseology deals with all
types of set expressions which are divided into three classes: phraseological
units, phraseomatic units and border-line cases.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий