CLASSIFICATION OF SET EXPRESSIONS

Many various lines of approach have been used, and yet the boundaries of this set, its classification and the place of phraseology in the vocabulary appear controversial issues of present-day linguistics.

The English and the Americans can be proud of a very rich set of dictionaries of word-groups and idiomatic phrases. Their object is chiefly practical: colloquial phrases are considered an important characteristic feature of natural spoken English and a stumbling block for foreigners. The choice of entries is not clear-cut: some dictionaries of this kind include among their entries not only word combinations but also separate words interesting from the point of view of their etymology, motivation, or expressiveness, and, on the other hand, also greetings, proverbs, familiar quotations. Other dictionaries include grammatical information. The most essential theoretical problems remain not only unsolved but untackled except in some works on general linguistics. A more or less detailed grouping was given in the books on English idioms by L.P. Smith and W. Ball. But even the authors themselves do not claim that their groupings should be regarded as classification. They show interest in the origin and etymology of the phrases collected and arrange them accordingly into phrases from sea life, from agriculture, from sports, from hunting, etc.

The question of classification of set expressions is mainly worked out in this country. Eminent Russian linguists, Academicians F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov and others paved the way for serious syntactical analysis of set expressions. Many Soviet scholars have shown a great interest in the theoretical aspects of the problem. A special branch of linguistics termed phraseology came into being in this country. The most significant theories advanced for Russian phraseology are those by S.A. Larin and V.V. Vinogradov.

As to the English language, the number of works of our linguists devoted to phraseology is so great that it is impossible to enumerate them; suffice it to say that there exists a comprehensive dictionary of English phraseology compiled by A.V. Koonin. This dictionary sustained several editions and contains an extensive bibliography and articles on some most important problems. The first doctoral thesis on this subject was by N.N. Amosova (1963), then came the doctoral thesis by A.V. Koonin. The results were published in monographs (see the list given at the end of the book). Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky also devoted attention to this aspect in his book on lexicology. He considers a phraseological unit to be similar to the word because of the idiomatic relationships between its parts resulting in semantic unity and permitting its introduction into speech as something complete.

The influence his classification exercised is much smaller than that of V.V. Vinogradov’s. The classification of V.V. Vinogradov is synchronic. He developed some points first advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally and gave a strong impetus to a purely lexicological treatment of the material. Thanks to him phraseological units were rigorously defined as lexical complexes with specific semantic features and classified accordingly. His classification is based upon the motivation of the unit, i.e. the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of its component parts. The degree of motivation is correlated with the rigidity, indivisibility and semantic unity of the expression, i.e with the possibility of changing the form or the order of components, and of substituting the whole by a single word. The classification is naturally developed for Russian phraseology but we shall illustrate it with English examples.

According to the type of motivation and the other above-mentioned features, three types of phraseological units are suggested: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations.

Phraseological fusions (e.g. tit for tat) represent as their name suggests the highest stage of blending together. The meaning of components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the whole, by its expressiveness and emotional properties. Phraseological fusions are specific for every language and do not lend themselves to literal translation into other languages.

Phraseological unities are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated. The emotional quality is based upon the image created by the whole as in to stick (to stand) to one’s guns, i.e. ‘refuse to change one’s statements or opinions in the face of opposition’, implying courage and integrity. The example reveals another characteristic of the type, namely the possibility of synonymic substitution, which can be only very limited. Some of these are easily translated and even international, e.g. to know the way the wind is blowing.

The third group in this classification, the phraseological combinations, are not only motivated but contain one component used in its direct meaning while the other is used figuratively: meet the demand, meet the necessity,

meet the requirements. The mobility of this type is much greater, the substitutions are not necessarily synonymical.

It has been pointed out by N.N. Amosova and A.V. Koonin that this classification, being developed for the Russian phraseology, does not fit the specifically English features.

N.N. Amosova's approach is contextological. She defines phraseological units as units of fixed context. Fixed context is defined as a context characterized by a specific and unchanging sequence of definite lexical components, and a peculiar semantic relationship between them. Units of fixed context are subdivided into p h r asemes and idioms. Phrasemes are always binary: one component has a phraseologically bound meaning, the other serves as the determining context (small talk, small hours, small change). In idioms the new meaning is created by the whole, though every element may have its original meaning weakened or even completely lost: in the nick of time ‘at the exact moment’. Idioms may be motivated or demotivated. A motivated idiom is homonymous to a free phrase, but this phrase is used figuratively: take the bull by the horns ‘to face dangers without fear’. In the nick of time is demotivated, because the word nick is obsolete. Both phrasemes and idioms may be movable (changeable) or immovable.

An interesting and clear-cut modification of V.V. Vinogradov’s scheme was suggested by T.V. Stroyeva for the German language. She divides the whole bulk of phraseological units into two classes: u n i t-i e s and c o m b i n a t i o n s . Phraseological fusions do not constitute a separate class but are included into unities, because the criterion of motivation and demotivation is different for different speakers, depending on their education and erudition. The figurative meaning of a phraseological unity is created by the whole, the semantic transfer being dependent on extra-linguistic factors, i.e. the history of the people and its culture. There may occur in speech homonymous free phrases, very different in meaning (cf. jemandem den Kopf waschen ‘to scold sb’ — a phraseological unity and den Kopf waschen ‘to wash one’s head’ — a free phrase). The form and structure of a phraseological unity is rigid and unchangeable. Its stability is often supported by rhyme, synonymy, parallel construction, etc. Phraseological combinations, on the contrary, reveal a change of meaning only in one of the components and this semantic shift does not result in enhancing expressiveness.

A.V. Koonin is interested both in discussing fundamentals and in investigating special problems. His books, and especially the dictionary he compiled and also the dissertations of his numerous pupils are particularly useful as they provide an up-to-date survey of the entire field.

A.V. Koonin thinks that phraseology must develop as an independent linguistic science and not as a part of lexicology. His classification of phraseological units is based on the functions the units fulfil in speech. They may be nominating (a bull in a china shop), interjectional (a pretty kettle of fish!), communicative (familiarity breeds contempt), or nominating-communicative (pull somebody’s leg). Further classification into subclasses depends on whether, the units are changeable

Chapter 13

Date: 2016-01-03; view: 2638