Лекции по "Английскому языку"

 

PHRASEOLOGY

 

1. Free Word-Groups Versus Set-Phrases.
2. Phraseological Units, Idioms, Word-Equivalents 
3. Idiomaticity
4. Phraseological Units and Idioms Proper
5. Phraseology as a Subsystem of Language

 

1. Free Word-Groups Versus Set-Phrases.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of phraseology. It should be noted, however, that no proper scientific investigation of English phraseology has been attempted until quite recently. English and American linguists as a rule confine themselves to collecting various words, word-groups and sentences presenting some interest either from the point of view of origin, style, usage, or some other feature peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as idioms but no attempt has been made to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.

American and English dictionaries of unconventional English, slang and idioms and other highly valuable reference-books contain a wealth of proverbs, sayings, various lexical units of all kinds, but as a rule do not seek to lay down a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word-groups and phraseological units. Paradoxical as it may seem the first dictionary in which theoretical principles for the selection of English phraseological units were elaborated was published in our country. The term itself phraseological units to denote a specific group of phrases was introduced by Soviet linguists and is generally accepted in our country.

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed phraselogical units.

The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined.

The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases.

Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member-words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hand there are innumerable border-line cases.

However, the existing terms, e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups.

The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups.

The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack cf motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country.

The term word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.

Thus differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and a specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology. These criteria and the ensuing classification are briefly discussed below.

 

2. Phraseological Units, Idioms, Word-Equivalents.

Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units.

This definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential features of phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation. It is consequently assumed that unlike components of free word-groups which may vary according to the needs of communication, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations.

Thus, for example, the constituent red in the free word-group red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other adjective denoting colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentially changing the denotational meaning of the word-group under discussion (a flower of a certain colour). In the phraseological unit red tape (bureaucratic “methods) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the adjective would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group. A blue (black, white, etc.) tape would mean ‘a tape of a certain colour’. It follows that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its lexical components.

It is also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is not confined to its lexical components. Grammatical structure of phraseological units is to a certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the word-groups red flower and red tape is identical (A + +N), the noun flower may be used in the plural (red flowers), whereas no such change is possible in the phraseological unit red tape; red tapes would then denote ‘tapes of red colour’ but not ‘bureaucratic methods’. This is also true of other types of phraseological units, e.g. what will Mrs. Grundy say?, (что скажут люди?) where the verbal component is invariably reproduced in the same grammatical form.

 

3. Idiomaticity. Classification and Criterion of Function.

Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units may be classified into three big groups:

1) phraseological fusions,

2) phraseological unities

3) phraseological collocations.

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red tape — ‘bureaucratic methods’; heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kick the bucket — ‘die’; and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion.

Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit.

For example, to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests ‘take a threatening tone’ or ’show an intention to injure’ for show one’s teeth and ‘discuss or make public one’s quarrels’ for wash one’s dirty linen in public.

Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree of stability of the lexical components.

Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups.

In phraseological collocations variability of member-words is strictly limited. For instance, bear a grudge may be changed into bear malice, but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say take a liking (fancy) but not take hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichés where the meaning of member-words is to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability.

The current definition of phraseological units as highly idiomatic word-groups which cannot be freely made up in speech, but are reproduced as ready-made units has been subject to severe criticism by linguists of different schools of thought. The main objections and debatable points may be briefly outlined as follows:

1) The definition is felt to be inadequate as the concept ready-made units seems to be rather vague. In fact this term can be applied to a variety of heterogeneous linguistic phenomena ranging from word-groups to sentences (e.g. proverbs, sayings) and also quotations from poems, novels or scientific treatises all of which can be described as ready-made units.

Frequent discussions have also led to questioning this approach to phraseology from a purely semantic point of view as the criterion of idiomaticity is found to be an inadequate guide in singling out phraseological units from other word-groups.

Borderline cases between idiomatic and non-idiomatic word-groups are so numerous and confusing that the final decision seems to depend largely on one’s “feeling of the language". This can be proved by the fact that the same word-groups are treated by some linguists as idiomatic phrases and by others as free word-groups. For example, such word-groups as take the chair — ‘preside at a meeting’, take one’s chance — ‘trust to luck or fortune’, take trouble (to do smth) — ‘to make efforts’ and others are marked in some of the English dictionaries as idioms or phrases, whereas in others they are found as free word-groups illustrating one of the meanings of the verb to take or the nouns combined with this verb.

The impracticability of the criterion of idiomaticity is also observed in the traditional classification of phraseological collocations. The extreme cases, i.e. phraseological fusions and collocations are easily differentiated but the borderline units, as for example phraseological fusions and phraseological unities or phraseological collocations and free word-groups, are very often doubtful and rather vaguely outlined. We may argue, e.g., that such word-groups as high treason or show the white feather are fusions because one finds it impossible to infer the meaning of the whole from the meaning of the individual components. Others may feel these word-groups as metaphorically motivated and refer them to phraseological unities.

The term idiomaticity is also regarded by some linguists as requiring clarification. As a matter of fact this term is habitually used to denote lack of motivation from the point of view of one’s mother tongue. A word-group which defies word by word translation is consequently described as idiomatic. It follows that if idiomaticity is viewed as the main distinguishing feature of phraseological units, the same word-groups in the English language may be classified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian speakers and as non-idiomatic word-groups by those whose mother tongue contains analogous collocations.

Thus, e.g., from the point of view of Russian speakers such word-groups as take tea, take care, etc. are often referred to phraseology as the Russian translation equivalents of these word-groups (пить чай, заботиться) do not contain the habitual translation equivalents of the verb take. French speakers, however, are not likely to find anything idiomatic about these word-groups as there are similar lexical units in the French language (cf. prendre du thé, prendre soin). This approach to idiomaticity may be termed interlingual as it involves a comparison, explicit or implicit of two different languages.

The term idiomaticity is also understood as lack of motivation from the point of view of native speakers. As here we are concerned with the English language, this implies that only those word-groups are to be referred to phraseology which are felt as non-motivated, at least synchronically, by English speakers, e.g. red tape, kick the bucket and the like. This approach to idiomaticity may be termed intralingual.

In other words the judgement as to idiomaticity is passed within the framework of the language concerned, not from the outside. It is readily observed that classification of factual linguistic material into free word-groups and phraseological units largely depends upon the particular meaning we attach to the term idiomaticity. It will be recalled, for example, that habitual collocations are word-groups whose component member or members possess specific and limited lexical valency, as a rule essentially different from the lexical valency of related words in the Russian language.

A number of habitual collocations, e.g. heavy rain, bad mistake, take care and others, may be felt by Russian speakers as peculiarly English and therefore idiomatic, whereas they are not perceived as such by English speakers in whose mother tongue the lexical valency of member words heavy, bad, take presupposes their collocability with rain, mistake, care.

The criterion of stability is also criticised as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from other word-groups habitually referred to as phraseology.

We observe regular substitution of at least one of the lexical components. In to cast smth in smb’s teeth, e.g. the verb cast may be replaced by fling; to take a decision is found alongside with to make a decision; not to care a twopenny is just one of the possible variants of the phrase, whereas in others the noun twopenny may be replaced by a number of other nouns, e.g. farthing, button, pin, sixpence, fig, etc.

It is also argued that stability of lexical components does not presuppose lack of motivation. The word-group shrug one’s shoulders, e.g., does not allow of the substitution of either shrug or shoulders; the meaning of the word-group, however, is easily deducible from the meanings of the member-words, hence the word-group is completely motivated, though stable.

Idiomatic word-groups may be variable as far as their lexical components are concerned, or stable. It was observed that, e.g., to cast smth in smb’s teeth is a highly idiomatic but variable word-group as the constituent member cast may be replaced by fling or throw; the word-group red tape is both highly idiomatic and stable.

It follows that stability and idiomaticity may be regarded as two different aspects of word-groups. Stability is an essential feature of set-phrases both motivated and non-motivated. Idiomaticity is a distinguishing feature of phraseological units or idioms which comprise both stable set-phrases and variable word-groups. The two features are not mutually exclusive and may be overlapping, but are not interdependent.

Stability of word-groups may be viewed in terms of predictability of occurrence of member-words. Thus, e.g., the verb shrug predicts the occurrence of the noun shoulders and the verb clench the occurrence of either fists or teeth.

The degree of predictability or probability of occurrence of member-words is different in different word-groups. We may assume, e.g., that the verb shrug predicts with a hundred per cent probability the occurrence of the noun shoulders, as no other noun can follow this particular verb. The probability of occurrence of the noun look after the verb cast is not so high because cast may be followed not only by look but also by glance, light, lots and some other nouns. Stability of the word-group in clench one’s fists is higher than in cast a look, but lower than in shrug one’s shoulders as the verb clench predicts the occurrence of either fists or teeth.

It is argued that the stability of all word-groups may be statistically calculated and the word-groups where stability exceeds a certain limit (say 50%) may be classified as set-phrases.

Predictability of occurrence may be calculated in relation to one or, more than one constituent of the word-group. Thus, e.g., the degree of probability of occurrence of the noun bull after the verb take is very low and may practically be estimated at zero. The two member-words take the bull, however, predict the occurrence of by the horns with a very high degree of probability.

Stability viewed in terms of probability of occurrence seems a more reliable criterion in differentiating between set-phrases and variable or free word-groups, but cannot be relied upon to single out phraseological units. Besides, it is argued that it is practically impossible to calculate the stability of all the word-groups as that would necessitate investigation into the lexical valency of the whole vocabulary of the English language.

Another angle from which the problem of phraseology is viewed is the so-called functional approach. This approach assumes that phraseological units may be defined as specify word-groups functioning as word-equivalents. The fundamental features of phraseological units thus understood are their semantic and grammatical inseparability which are regarded as distinguishing features of isolated words.

It will be recalled that when we compare a free word-group, e.g, heavy weight, and a phraseological unit, e.g. heavy father, we observe that in the case of the free wordgroup each of the member-words has its own denotational meaning. So the lexical meaning of the word-group can be adequately described as the combined lexical meaning of its constituents. In the case of the phraseological unit, however, the denotational meaning belongs to the word-group as a single semantically inseparable unit. The individual member-words do not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the meaning of the group. The meanings of the member-words heavy and father taken in isolation are in no way connected with the meaning of the phrase heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’.

The same is true of the stylistic reference and emotive charge of phraseological units. In free word-groups each of the components preserves as a rule its own stylistic reference. This can be readily observed in the stylistic effect produced by free word-groups made up of words of widely different stylistic value, e.g. to commence to scrub, valiant chap and the like.

A certain humorous effect is attained because one of the member-words (commence, valiant) is felt as belonging to the bookish stylistic layer, whereas the other (scrub, chap) is felt as stylistically neutral or colloquial. When we say, however, that kick the bucket is highly colloquial or heavy father is a professional term, we do not refer to the stylistic value of the component words of these phraseological units kick, bucket, heavy or father, but the stylistic value of the word-group as a single whole. Taken in isolation the words are stylistically neutral. It follows that phraseological units are characterised by a single stylistic reference irrespective of the number and nature of their component words. Semantic inseparability of phraseological units is viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity which enables us to regard them as semantically equivalent to single words.

The term grammatical inseparability implies that the grammatical meaning or, to be more exact, the part-of-speech meaning of phraseological units is felt as belonging to the word-group as a whole irrespective of the part-of-speech meaning of the component words. Comparing the free word-group, e.g. a long day, and the phraseological unit, e.g. in the long run, we observe that in the free word-group the noun day and the adjective long preserve the part-of-speech meaning proper to these words taken in isolation. The whole group is viewed as composed of two independent units (adjective and noun). In the phraseological unit in the long run the part-of-speech meaning belongs to the group as a single whole. In the long run is grammatically equivalent to single adverbs, e.g. finally, ultimately, firstly, etc. In the case of the phraseological unit under discussion there is no connection between the part-of-speech meaning of the member-words (in — preposition, long — adjective, run — noun) and the part-of-speech meaning of the whole word-group. Grammatical inseparability of phraseological units viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity enables us to regard them as grammatically equivalent to single words.

It is argued that the final test of the semantic and grammatical inseparability of phrases is their functional unity, i.e. their aptness to function in speech as single syntactic units.

It will be observed that in the free word-groups, e.g. heavy weight, long time, the adjectives heavy and long function as attributes to other members of the sentence (weight, time), whereas the phraseological units heavy father and in the long run are functionally inseparable and are always viewed as making up one and only one member of the sentence (the subject or the object, etc.), i.e. they are functionally equivalent to single words.

Proceeding from the assumption that phraseological units are non-motivated word-groups functioning as word-equivalents by virtue of their semantic and grammatical inseparability, we may classify them into noun equivalents (e.g. heavy father), verb equivalents (e.g. take place, break the news), adverb equivalents (e.g. in the long run), etc.

As far as their structure is concerned these groups are not homogeneous and may be subdivided into the same groups as variable phrases. Among verb equivalents, for example, we may find verb-noun units (take place) and verb-adverb units (give up), adverb equivalents comprise preposition-noun groups (e.g by heart, at length), adverb-conjunction-adverb groups (e.g. far and wide), etc.

 

4. Phraseological Units and Idioms Proper.

As can be inferred from the above discussion, the functional approach does not discard idiomaticity as the main feature distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups, but seeks to establish formal criteria of idiomaticity by analysing the syntactic function of phraseological units in speech.

An attempt is also made to distinguish phraseological units as word-equivalents from idioms proper, i.e. idiomatic units such as that’s where the shoe pinches, the cat is out of the bag, what will Mrs Grundy say?, etc. Unlike phraseological units, proverbs, sayings and quotations do not always function as word-equivalents. They exist as ready-made expressions with a specialised meaning of their own which cannot be inferred from the meaning of their components taken singly. Due to this the linguists who rely mainly on the criterion of idiomaticity classify proverbs and sayings as phraseological units.