Лекции по "Английскому языку"

The proponents of the functional criterion argue that proverbs and sayings lie outside the province of phraseology. It is pointed out, firstly, that the lack of motivation in such linguistic units is of an essentially different nature. Idioms are mostly based on metaphors which makes the transferred meaning of the whole expression more or less transparent. If we analyse such idioms, as, e.g., to carry coals to Newcastle, to fall between two stools, or fine feathers make fine birds, we observe that though their meaning cannot be inferred from the literal meaning of the member-words making up these expressions, they are still metaphorically motivated as the literal meaning of the whole expression readily suggests its meaning as an idiom, i.e. ‘to do something that is absurdly superfluous’, ‘fail through taking an intermediate course’ and ‘to be well dressed to give one an impressive appearance’ respectively. The meaning of the phraseological units, e.g. red tape, heavy father, in the long run, etc., cannot be deduced either from the meaning of the component words or from the metaphorical meaning of the word-group as a whole.

Secondly, the bulk of idioms never function in speech as word-equivalents which is a proof of their semantic and grammatical separability.

It is also suggested that idioms in general have very much in common with quotations from literary sources, some of which also exist as idiomatic ready-made units with a specialised meaning of their own. Such quotations which have acquired specialised meaning and idiomatic value, as, e.g., to be or not to be (Shakespeare), to cleanse the Augean stables (mythology), a voice crying out in the wilderness (the Bible), etc. differ little from proverbs and sayings which may also be regarded as quotations from English folklore and are part of this particular branch of literary studies.

The definition of phraseological units as idiomatic word-groups functioning as word-equivalents has also been subject to criticism. The main disputable points are as follows:

1. The criterion of function is regarded as not quite reliable when used with a view to singling out phraseological units from among other more or less idiomatic word-groups. The same word-groups may function in some utterances as an inseparable group and in others as a separable group with each component performing its own syntactic function. This seems largely to be accounted for by the structure of the sentence in which the word-group is used. Thus, for example, in the sentence She took care of everything — take care is perceived as a single unit functioning as the predicate, whereas in the sentence great care was taken to keep the children happy — take care is undoubtedly separable into two components: the verb take functions as the predicate and the noun care as the object. The functional unity of the word-group seems to be broken.

2. It is also argued that the criterion of function serves to single out a comparatively small group of phraseological units comparable with phraseological fusions in the traditional semantic classification but does not provide for an objective criterion for the bulk of word-groups occupying an intermediate position between free word-groups and highly idiomatic phraseological units.

Phraseological units in Modern English are also approached from the contextual point of view. Proceeding from the assumption that individual meanings of polysemantic words can be observed in certain contexts and may be viewed as dependent on those contexts, it is argued that phraseological units are to be defined through specific types of context. Free word-groups make up variable contexts whereas the essential feature of phraseological units is a non-variable or fixed context.

Non-variability is understood as the stability of the word-group. In variable contexts which include polysemantic words substitution of one of the components is possible within the limits of the lexical valency of the word under consideration. It is observed, e.g., that in such word-groups as a small town the word town may be substituted for by a number of other nouns, e.g. room, audience, etc., the adjective small by a number of other adjectives, e.g. large, big, etc. The substitution of nouns does not change the meaning of small which denotes in all word-groups 'not large’. The substitution of adjectives does not likewise affect the meaning of town. Thus variability of the lexical components is the distinguishing feature of the so-called free word-groups. In other word-groups such as small business, a small farmer the variable members serve as a clue to the meaning of the adjective small. It may be observed that when combined with the words town, room, etc. small denotes ‘not large’, whereas it is only in combination with the nouns business, farmer, etc. that small denotes ‘of limited size’ or ‘having limited capital’. Word-groups of this type are some-times described as traditional collocations.

Unlike word-groups with variable members phraseological units allow of no substitution. For example, in the phraseological unit small hours — ‘the early hours of the morning from about 1 a.m. to 4 a.m.' — there is no variable member as small denotes ‘early’ only in collocation with hours. In the phraseological unit small beer the adjective small has the meaning ‘weak’ only in this fixed non-variable context. As can be seen from the above, a non-variable context is indicative of a specialised meaning of one of the member-words. The specialised meaning of one of the lexical components is understood as the meaning of the word only in the given phrase (e. g. small hours), i.e. this particular meaning cannot be found in the word taken in isolation or in any of the variable word-groups in which the word is used. It follows that specialised meaning and stability of lexical components are regarded as interdependent features of phraseological units whose semantic structure is unique, i.e. no other word-groups can be created on this semantic pattern.

The two criteria of phraseological units —  specialised meaning of the components and non-variability of context — display unilateral dependence. Specialised meaning presupposes complete stability of the lexical components, as specialised meaning of the member-words or idiomatic meaning of the whole word-group is never observed outside fixed contexts.

Phraseological units may be subdivided into phrasemes and idioms according to whether or not one of the components of the whole word-group possesses specialised meaning.

Phrasemes are, as a rule, two-member word-groups in which one of the members has specialised meaning dependent on the second component as, e.g., in small hours; the second component (hours) serves as the only clue to this particular meaning of the first component as it is found only in the given context (small hours). The word that serves as the clue to the specialised meaning of one of the components is habitually used in its central meaning (cf., for example, small hours, and three hours, pleasant hours, etc.).

Idioms are distinguished from phrasemes by the idiomaticity of the whole word-group (e.g. red tape — ‘bureaucratic methods’) and the impossibility of attaching meaning to the members of the group taken in isolation. Idioms are semantically and grammatically inseparable units. They may comprise unusual combinations of words which when understood in their literal meaning are normally unallocable as, e.g. mare’s nest (a mare — ‘a female horse’, a mare’s nest — ‘a hoax, a discovery which proves false or worthless’). Unusualness of collocability, or logical incompatibility of member-words is indicative of the idiomaticity of the phrase.

Idioms made up of words normally brought together are homonymous with corresponding variable word-groups, e.g. to let the cat out of the bag — ‘to divulge a secret’, and the clue to the idiomatic meaning is to be found in a wider context outside the phrase itself.

The main objections to the contextual approach, are as follows:

1. Non-variability of context does not necessarily imply specialised meaning of the component or the components of the word-group. In some cases complete stability of the lexical components is found in word-groups including words of a narrow or specific range of lexical valency as, e.g., shrug one’s shoulders.

2. Some word-groups possessing a certain degree of idiomaticity are referred to traditional collocations. The criterion of traditional collocations, however, is different from that of phraseological units. In the contextual approach traditional collocations are understood as word-groups with partially variable members; the degree of idiomaticity is disregarded. Consequently such word-groups as, e.g., clench fists (teeth) and cast (throw, fling) something in somebody’s teeth may both be referred to traditional collocations on the ground of substitutability of one of the member-words in spite of a tangible difference in the degree of idiomatic meaning.

 

5. Phraseology as a Subsystem of Language.

Comparing the three approaches discussed above (semantic, functional, and contextual) we have ample ground to conclude that they 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 complete 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 is a phraseme because one of the components is used in its literal meaning. If however we classify it proceeding from the functional approach it is a phraseological unit because it is syntactically inseparable and therefore functions as a word-equivalent. As can be seen from the above the status of the 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 shortcomings of the phraseological theories discussed above. The main features of this new approach which is now more or less universally accepted by linguists are as follows:

Phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and not as a part of lexicology.

Phraseology deals with a phraseological subsystem of language and not with isolated phraseological units.

Phraseology is concerned with all types of set expressions.

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 border-line 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.

Phraseological and phraseomatic units are not regarded as word- equivalents but some of them are treated as word correlates.

Phraseological and phraseomatic units are set expressions and their phraseological stability distinguishes them from free phrases and compound words.

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.

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.

Lexical stability means that the components of set expressions are either irreplaceable (e.g. red tape, mare’s nest) or partly 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).

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 changes 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.

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 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 (e.g. OE. hē haefde hine zeslaegenne) 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. (Cf. OE. in stede and ME. in despit.)

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

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

General conclusions:

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 groups.

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.