logo
Kovalenko_lexicology

5. Phraseology

Phraseology and phraseologisms – definition / Phraseological unit vs word / Phraseological unit vs word combination / The degree of semantic isolation /Classifications of phraseologisms / Stability of phraseological units / Phraseological variants / Structural synonymy / Proverbs

Phraseology studies such collocations of words (phraseologisms, phraseological units, idioms), where the meaning of the whole collocation is different from the simple sum of literal meanings of the words, comprising a phraseological unit. Ex. Dutch auction is not an auction taking place in Netherlands. The meaning of this phraseological unit refers to any auction, where instead of rising, the prices fall (compare Dutch comfort, Dutch courage, Dutch treat reflecting complicated historical factors).

Phraseologisms, according to V.N. Telia, are a general name of all semantically rigid combinations of words which, unlike similar free syntactic structures, are not created according to the general laws of word combinability but are repdroduced in speech in a fixed combination of a certain semantic strucure and lexical-grammatical composition.

Prof. Kunin A.V. defined phraseological units as stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings (to kick the bucket, Greek gift, drink till all's blue, drunk as a fiddler (drunk as a lord, as a boiled owl), as mad as a hatter (as a march hare)) (Кунин, 1967).

According to Rosemarie Gläser, a phraseological unit is a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic stability, may be idiomatized, may carry connotations, and may have an emphatic or intensifying function in a text.

Phraseological Unit vs Word

The theory of the equivalence of phraseological units to words comes down to the theory of the identification of expressive factors, developed by Charles Bally, who has noted that the most general quality of a phraseological expression, which can substitute all other qualities, is the ability or inability of a word-combination to be substituted by a single word. Charles Bally called such words “words-identifiers”.

Prof. Smirnitsky treats phraseological units as “word equivalents”.

The syntactic equivalence of phraseological units to words is quite relative, for example comparative phraseologisms (as good as gold) function in the sentence as attributes the same as adjectives, but, unike adjectives, they are normally put in post-position to the noun they modify rather than in pre-position.

Phraseological Unit vs Word Combination

3 types of lexical combinability of words can be mentioned:

1. Free combination: grammatical properties of words are the main factor of their combinability. Ex.: I’m talking to you. You are writing. Free combinations permit substitution of any of their elements without semantic change of the other element.

2. Collocations: At least one member of a collocation is not free, but is associated with another particular word or words. Speakers become accustomed to collocations. Very often they are related to the referential and situational meaning of words. Ex.: to commit a murder; bread & butter; dark night; blue sky; bright day.

Some collocations involve transferred or figurative meanings of words, in particular collocations involving colour words. Ex.: to be green with jealousy.

3. Idioms. Idioms are also collocations, because they consist of several words that tend to be used together, but the difference is that we can’t guess the meaning of the whole idiom from the meanings of its parts. Ex.: to cry a blue murder = to complain loudly. This criterion is called the degree of semantic isolation. In different types of idioms it is different.

The most basic and universal features of phraseologisms are considered to be:

Professor V.V. Vinogradov defined 4 types of phraseologisms based on the degrees of motivation and semantic isolation:

  1. Idioms (phraseological fusions, opaque phraseologisms), whose meaning is completely unmotivated (i.e. cannot be deduced neither from the literal nor from the figurative meanings of their components): to kick the bucket; dog days; to wear your heart on your sleeve.

  2. Phraseological unities (semi-opaque phraseologisms), idioms, whose inner structure remains transparent, i.e. their meanings can be guessed from the figurative meanings of their components: to be a dime a dozen; to come back down to earth; a sting in the tail; the calm before the storm; leave no stone unturned; to win hands down; to take the wind out of sb's sails; any port in a storm.

  3. Phraseological combinations (transparent phraseologisms), whose meanings can be deduced from the literal meanings of their components: a firm character; a field of activity, to see the light.

  4. Phraseological expressions are set phrases or sentences with a transposed meaning (here belong proverbs and sayings): let the sleeping dogs lie; a bird in a hand is worth to in the bush.

The components of phraseological units can have different levels of component interdependance (according to Prof. A. Koonin) (Кунин, 1967, с. 1233-1264):

  1. Phraseological units with interdependable components that cannot be substituted by any others, i.e. constant components that need each other to express a certain meaning (constant component interdependance) ex. birds of a feather, green room, kick the bucket, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, etc.

  1. Collocations that have variants or structural synonyms but that do not allow any free elements in their structure (constant-variable interdependance), ex. not to lift (raise, stir, turn) a finger, strait as a poker (as a ramrod).

  2. Collocations that have variants or structural synonyms and at the same time allow free elements in their structure (constant variable-free interdependance), ex. give somebody a bit (a piece)of one's mind, close (shut) one's eyes to something, lay (put) somebody on the shelf.

  3. Collocations that allow free elements but that do not have variants or structural synonyms (constant interdependence with free elements), ex. give somebody a run for his money, take one's time, etc.

The principle of structural-semantic patterns doesn't work for phraseological units, which means that unlike free collocations phraseologisms can't be built by means of combining different words within a certain pattern.

Stability of phraseological units

O. Jespersen explained the phenomenon of stability of phraseological units by the fact that while free expressions are created in speech according to a certain pattern, phraseological units are used in a ready shape (Кунин, 1967).

A. Koonin names 6 levels of the stability of phraseological units (Кунин, 1967, p. 1233-1264):

  1. Usage stability. The fact that a phraseological unit is a unit of language, and not an individual formation.

  2. Stability on the structural-semantic level. A phraseological unit possesses a stable non-typical meaning, which means that it cannot be created with the help of a structural-semantic pattern.

  1. Stability on the semantic level, which implies meaning invariance.

  2. Stability on the lexical level, i.e. the possibility to interchange the components of a phraseological unit only within the limits of phraseological variability and structural synonymy and under condition that the semantic invariant is preserved.

  3. Stability on the morphological level is created due to the presence of:

- verbal word-forms: How do you do?

- noun word-forms in the singular or plural are used in phraseologisms quite often: Cook one's own goose, like a shot, sit on the fence, be on pins and needles, my aunt! my stars! Put up the shutters;

- adjectival word-forms of different degrees of comparison: one's better half, the last great chance, put one's best foot forward.

  1. Stability on the syntactic level i.e. the stability of the word-order within the phraseological unit, where the change is possible only within the limits of variability, structural synonymy or occasional deformation.

Phraseological variants and structural synonymy

Phraseological variants are the variants of a phraseological unit, equal in the quality and quantity of meanings, stylistic and syntactic functions, as well as the combinability with other words, and different in lexical composition, word-forms or the word-order.

There exist the following types of phraseological variants:

      1. Lexical variants: bear (give, lend) a hand, close (near) at hand, bear (lead) a charmed life (existence).

      2. Grammatical variants:

- morphological: in deep water = in deep waters; in Procrustes' bed = in Procrustean bed;

- syntactic: take away somebody's breath = take somebody's breath away;

- morphological-syntactic: pay nature's debt = pay one's debt to nature; the promised land = the land of promise.

      1. Lexical-grammatical variants:

- lexical-morphological: keep one's eyes (eye) peeled (skinned) = keep an eye peeled; close (shut) a (the) door (doors) upon (to) something; a lot of (much) water has flowd (flown) under the bridge (bridges) since;

- lexical-syntactic: bad news has wings = ill news flies fast; every tub must (should) stand on its own bottom = let every tub stand on its own bottom.

      1. Positional variants:

- monostructural: dot the i's and cross the t's = cross the t's and dot the i's; on and off = off and on;

- variants with different structures: head over ears = over head and ears.

      1. Quantitative variants:

- with truncated elements: be in for it = be for it;

- with added elements: lead somebody a dance = lead somebody a pretty dance.

      1. Punctuational variants: how do you do? = how do you do. What do you know about it?= What do you know about it!

      2. Spelling variants: hand in glove = hand-in-glove.

      3. Combined variants: arouse (stir up) a nest of hornets = raise (stir up) a hornet's (hornets') nest about one's ears.

When the lexical composition partially coincides, but the shades of meaning, stylistic shades or combinability are different, we speak about structural synonyms.

Structural synonyms can be of the following types:

      1. Ideographical structural synonyms, that differ in the shades of meaning: to set one's heart on and to set one's mind on.

      2. Stylistic structural synonyms, which differ in stylistic shades: not to care a straw is a colloquial expression, while not to care a damn is considered to be rude.

      3. Regional structural synonyms: Br.E. on the cards vs Am.E. in the cards; literary variant to be the worse for drink (for liquor) vs to be the worse of drink (of liquor) (Scottish regional variants).

      4. Structural synonyms that differ in combinability: turn (set, put) the clock back (40 years, to the Middle Ages) vs turn back the clock (of history, of progress); adjective + as anything vs verb + like anything (verbal vs adjectival intensifier).

Proverbs are considered to be a separate type of phraseologisms.

A proverb (from the Latin proverbium) is a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated, which expresses a truth, based on common sense or the practical experience of humanity. They are often metaphorical. Proverbs and proverbial expressions have been given a variety of labels: adages, dictums, maxims, mottoes, precepts, saws, truisms. The terms all convey the notion of a piece of traditional wisdom, handed down by previous generations. In most cases, the origin of a proverb is unknown.

Proverbs are often borrowed from similar languages and cultures, and sometimes come down to the present through more than one language. Both the Bible (Book of Proverbs) and Medieval Latin have played a considerable role in distributing proverbs across Europe, although almost every culture has examples of its own.

The effectiveness of a proverb lies largely in its brevity and directness. The syntax is simple, the images vivid, and the allusions domestic, and thus easy to understand. Memorability is aided through the use of alliteration, rhythm, and rhyme.

Subgenres include proverbial comparisons (as busy as a bee), proverbial interrogatives (Does a chicken have lips?) and twin formulae (give and take).

A similar form is proverbial expressions (to bite the dust). The difference is that proverbs are unchangeable sentences, while proverbial expressions permit alterations to fit the grammar of the context.

Another close construction is an allusion to a proverb, such as ’The new broom will sweep clean’.

Typical stylistic features of proverbs (Arora, 1995) are:

Here is the list of some examples of proverbs in general English, Scottish and American:

⁂