ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4696
Скачиваний: 79
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 chil-
dren 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 phra-
seological 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.
1
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 f i x e d context.‘
Non-variability is understood as the stability of the word-group. In vari-
able 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 busi-
ness, 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.
a 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 t r a d i t i o n a l c o l l o c a t i o n s .
2
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.' —
1
This approach is suggested by Prof. N. N. Amosova in her book Основы англий-
ской фразеологии. ЛГУ, 1963, and later on elaborated in “English Contextology”, L.,
1968.
2
See проф.
А. И. Смирницкий.
Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956, §§
254, 255.
82
§ 18. Criterion of Context
there is no variable member as
small
denotes ‘early’ only in collocation
with
hours.
In the phraseological unit
small beer 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 com-
ponents 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 cre-
ated on this semantic pattern.
The two criteria of phraseological units — specialised meaning of the
components and non-variability of context — display unilateral depend-
ence. 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 con-
texts.
Phraseological units may be subdivided into p h r a s e m e s and
i d i o m s according to whether or not one of the components of the
whole word-group possesses specialised meaning.
P h r a s e m e s 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.).
I d i o m s are distinguished from p h r a s e m e s by the idiomatic-
ity 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 under-
stood 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 in-
compatibility 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 ap-
proach, 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 nar-
row or specific range of lexical valency as, e.g.,
shrug one’s shoulders.
83
§ 19. Some Debatable Points
2. Some word-groups possessing a certain degree of idiomaticity are
referred to traditional collocations. The criterion of traditional colloca-
tions, however, is different from that of phraseological units. In the con-
textual 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.
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 re-
garded 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 impos-
sibility of any change in the ‘fixed context’ and their semantic inseparabil-
ity.
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 c o m p l e t e idiomaticity and stability but with a certain degree of
these distinguishing features of phraseological units. No objective criteria
of the d e g r e e of idiomaticity and stability have as yet been suggested.
Thus, e.g.,
to win a victory
according to the semantic approach is a phra-
seological combination because it is almost completely motivated and al-
lows of certain variability
to win, to gain
a
victory.
According to the func-
tional 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 phra-
seological unit because it is syntactically inseparable and therefore func-
tions 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
84
§ 20. Phraseology as
a Subsystem of Language
is now more or less universally accepted by Soviet linguists are as fol-
lows:
1
1.
Phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and
not as a part of lexicology.
2.
Phraseology deals with a phraseological subsystem of language and
not with isolated phraseological units.
3.
Phraseology is concerned with all types of set expressions.
4. 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 se-
mantic: phraseological units have fully or partially transferred meanings
while components of phraseomatic units are used in their literal mean-
ings.
5.
Phraseological and phraseomatic units are not regarded as word-
equivalents but some of them are treated as word correlates.
6.
Phraseological and phraseomatic units are set expressions and their
phraseological stability distinguishes them from free phrases and com-
pound words.
7.
Phraseological and phraseomatic units are made up of words of dif-
ferent degree of wordness depending on the type of set expressions they
are used in. (Cf. e.g.
small hours
and
red tape.)
Their structural sepa-
rateness, 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.
8.
S t a b i l i t y of use means that set expressions are reproduced
ready-made and not created in speech. They are not elements of individ-
ual style of speech but language units.
9.
L e x i c a l s t a b i l i t y means that the components of set ex-
pressions 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),
posi-
tional (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).
10. S e m a n t i c s t a b i l i t y is based on the lexical stability of
set expressions. Even when occasional changes ‘are introduced the mean-
ing of set expression is preserved. It may only be specified, made more
precise, weakened or strengthened. In other words in spite of all occa-
sional changes phraseological and phraseomatic units, as distin-
guished 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
1
This approach is suggested and worked out by Prof. A. V. Kunin. — See:
А. В. Ку-
нин.
Английская фразеология. М., 1970.
85
the meaning of the phrase, no such change occurs in
to raise (stir up) a
hornets’ nest about one’s
ears.
11. 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 phra-
seological 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 ac-
quired semantic and grammatical inseparability. It is observed that free
word-groups may undergo the process of grammaticalisation or lexicalisa-
tion.
Cases of g r a m m a t i c a l i s a t i o n 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 l e x i c a l i s a t i o n 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.
1
(Cf.
OE.
in stede
and
ME.
in despit.)
There are some grounds to suppose that there exists a kind of interde-
pendence 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 phrase-
ological units are numerically predominant in others. Thus, e.g., phrase-
ological units are found in great numbers as verb-equivalents whereas
compound verbs are comparatively few. This leads us to assume that lexi-
calisation of free word-groups and their transformation into words or phra-
seological units is governed by the general line of interdependence pecu-
liar 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 en-
counter 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 phra-
seological unit when it acquires semantic inseparability and becomes syn-
chronically non-motivated.
1
The process of lexicalisation may be observed in Modern English too. The noun yes-
terday, e.g., in the novels by Thomas Hardy occurs as a free word-group and is spelled
with a break
yester day.
86
§ 21. Some Problems
of the Diachronic Approach