Changeable and Unchangeable Set Expressions

Every utterance is a patterned, rhythmed and segmented sequence of signals. On the lexical level these signals building up the utterance are not exclusively words. Alongside with separate words speakers use larger blocks consisting of more than one word yet functioning as a whole. These set expressions are extremely variegated structurally, functionally, semantically and stylistically. Not only expressive colloquialisms, whether motivated like a sight for sore eyes and to know the ropes, or demotivated like tit for tat, but also terms like blank verse, the great vowel shift, direct object, political cliches: cold war, round-table conference, summit meeting, and emotionally and stylistically neutral combinations: in front of, as well as, a great deal, give up, etc. may be referred to this type. Even this short list is sufficient to show

¹ For a concise summary formulation of all the moot points in this new branch of linguistics and a comprehensive bibliography the reader is referred to the works of A.V. Koonin.

that the number of component elements, both notional and formal, varies, and that the resulting units may have the distribution of different parts of speech.

Set expressions have sometimes been called "word equivalents", and it has been postulated by A.I. Smirnitsky that the vocabulary of a language consists of words and word equivalents (word-groups), similar to words in so far as they are not created in speech but introduced into the act of communication ready-made. It is most important to keep in mind that here equivalence means only this and nothing more. Much confusion ensues from taking equivalence too literally. It does not concern us at this stage whether word equivalents have other features similar to those of words although we naturally hope that being guided by the most important primary feature we shall obtain in its wake important secondary characteristics. That is, we have reason to expect that at least some of the units will show indivisibility, express one action, and function as one member of the sentence, but in selecting the units we shall not take these secondary characteristics into consideration. Go off ‘to explode’ and similar constructions form a boundary set of phrasal verbs described in the chapter of compounds. The above approach is not the only one possible, but it meets the demands of applied linguistics, especially foreign language teaching and information retrieval. In both fields set expressions form a section of the vocabulary which has to be set apart and learned or introduced to pupils and into the "memory" of machines as whole stereotype groups of words. The integration of two or more words into a unit functioning as a whole with a characteristic unity of nomination (bread and butter 4= butter and bread) is chosen for the fundamental property, because it seems to permit checking by a rigorous enough linguistic procedure, namely, by the substitution test.

Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semifixed combinations. All these are but different stages of restrictions imposed upon co-occurrence of words, upon the lexical filling of structural patterns which are specific for every "language. The restrictions may be independent of the ties existing in extra-linguistic reality between the objects spoken of and be conditioned by purely linguistic factors, or have extra-linguistic causes in the history of the people. In free combinations the linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties of words.

A free phrase such as to go early permits substitution of any of its elements without semantic change in the other element or elements. The verb go in free phrases may be preceded by any noun or followed by any adverbial. Such substitution is, however, never unlimited.

In semi-fixed combinations we are not only able to say that such substitutes exist, but fix their boundaries by stating the semantic properties of words that can be used for substitution, or even listing them. That is to say, in semi-fixed combinations these lexico-semantic limits are manifest in restrictions imposed upon types of words which can be used in a given pattern. For example, the pattern consisting of the verb go followed by a preposition and a noun with no article before

it (go to school, go to market, go to courts, etc.) is used only with nouns of places where definite actions or functions are performed.

If substitution is only pronominal, or restricted to a few synonyms for one of the members only, or impossible, i.e. if the elements of the phrase are always the same and make a fixed context for each other, the word-group is a set expression.

No substitution of any elements whatever is possible in the following stereotyped (unchangeable) set expressions, which differ in many other respects: all the world and his wife, the man in the street, red tape, calf love, heads or tails, first night, to gild the pill, to hope for the best, busy as a bee, fair and square, stuff and nonsense, time and again, to and fro. These examples represent the extreme of restrictions defined by probabilities of co-occurrence of words in the English language. Here no variation and no substitution is possible, because it would destroy the meaning or the euphonic and expressive qualities of the whole. Many of these expressions are also interesting from the viewpoint of their informational characteristics, i.e. the sum total of information contained in the word-group including expressiveness and stylistic and emotional colouring is created by mutual interaction of elements. The expression red tape, for instance, as a derogatory name for trivial bureaucratic formalities originates in the old custom of Government officials and lawyers tying up their papers with red tape. Heads or tails comes from the old custom of deciding a dispute or settling which of two possible alternatives shall be followed by tossing a coin.

In a free phrase the semantic correlative ties are fundamentally different. The information is additive and each element has a much greater semantic independence. Each component may be substituted without affecting the meaning of the other: cut bread, cut cheese, eat bread. Information is additive in the sense that the amount of information we had on receiving the first signal, i.e. having heard or read the word cut, is increased, the listener obtains further details and learns what is cut. The reference of cut is unchanged. Every notional word can form additional syntactic ties with other words outside the expression. In a set expression information furnished by each element is not additive: actually it does not exist before we get the whole. No substitution for either cut or figure can be made without completely ruining the following: I had an uneasy fear that he might cut a poor figure beside all these clever Russian officers (Shaw). He was not managing to cut much of a figure (Murdoch).

The only substitution admissible for the expression cut a poor figure concerns the adjective. Poor may be substituted by ridiculous, grand, much of a and a few other adjectives characterizing the way in which a person’s behaviour may appear to others. The very limited character of this substitution seems to justify referring cut a poor figure to semifixed set expressions. In the stereotyped set expression cut no ice ‘to have no influence’ no substitution is possible. Pronominal substitution of constant elements is also possible. N.N. Amosova shows that it needs context to stand explained. e.g. A sullen December morning. Black

frost. Such frost reminded me of my last days in Stanton (Mitford). Black \rost means ‘frost without ice or snow’.

In a free combination the adjective would denote colour. It receives this different meaning only in correlation with the word frost. The pronoun such when replacing it also signals this new meaning. But pronominal replacement of this kind, according to N.N. Amosova, is possible only under certain very definite circumstances, which shows how close are the semantic ties between the parts of a set expression.

Numerous intermediate types existing between free combinations onthe one hand, and set expressions on the other, cause many discussions.

These are the hoary problems of the units described as stone wall, give up and take a walk types. We discussed them together with compounds. The so-called typical phrases or phrasal verbs: get a talk with, give a laugh, give a look, force a smile, make a blush, wear a grin, etc. are semantically almost equivalent to the corresponding simple verbs talk, laugh, look, smile and so on, yet they are more expressive, allowing syntactic expansion and inversion. E.g.: She only gave him one of her deep-gleaming smiles; And there was that glance she had given him.

Date: 2016-01-03; view: 3113