3. Proverbs, sayings and quotations.

The place of proverbs, sayings and familiar quotations with respect to phraseological units is a controversial issue.

A proverb is different from a phraseological unit in three aspects:

1. proverbs are different in structure: phraseological units fit into the structure of a sentence performing a certain syntactical function, more or less as words do, e.g. I hate skeletons in the cupboard or He played second fiddle to her in his father’s heart.

Proverbs in their structural aspect are sentences and cannot be used in this way.

2. they are different in semantics: a proverb is a short familiar epigrammatic saying expressing popular wisdom, a truth or a moral lesson in a concise and imaginative way. Proverbs stand for the whole statement.

Phraseological units stand for a single concept.

3. they are different in function: the function of phraseological units is purely nominative (i.e. they denote an object, an act); the function of proverbs in speech is communicative (i.e. they impart certain information).

Linguists differ in their opinions whether or not proverbs should be regarded as a subtype of phraseological units and studied together.

N.N. Amosova thinks that unless proverbs regularly form parts of other sentences it is not reasonable to include them into the system of language because they are independent units of communication. She also thinks that there is no more reason to consider them as part of phraseology than, for instance, riddles and children’s counts.

However there is an argument, that riddles and counts are not as a rule included into utterances in the process of communication whereas proverbs are. Whether they are included into an utterance as independent sentences or as part of sentences is immaterial.

Other scholars, such as V.V. Vinogradov and A.V. Koonin think that proverbs must be studied together with phraseological units.

A.V. Koonin labels proverbs communicative phraseological units. He supposes, that they are:

1) as stable as other phraseological units are

2) their structural aspect is irrelevant (whether the unit is a combination of words or a sentence)

3) the criterion of their function cannot be applied either as there are verbal phraseological units which are nominative when the verb is in the Active Voice and communicative when the verb is used in the Passive Voice, e.g. to shed crocodile tears – crocodile tears are shed.

There are some more arguments in favour of A.V. Koonin’s approach:

1. there does not exist any rigid border-line between proverbs and phraseological units as proverbs often form the basis of phraseological units: a drowning man will clutch at a straw → to clutch at a straw; it is useless to lock the stable door when the steed is stolen → to lock the stable door.

2. some of the proverbs are easily transferred into phraseological units, e.g. do not cast pearls before swine → to cast pearls before swine.

As to familiar quotations they are different from proverbs in their origin. They come from literature but by and by they become part and parcel of the language, so that many people using them do not even know that they are quoting, and very few could accurately name the play or passage on which they are drawing.

The Shakespearian quotations have become and remain extremely numerous – they have contributed to the store of the language, e.g. Frailty, thy name is woman; Something is rotten in the state of Denmark; Brevity is the soul of wit (from Hamlet).

Other poets, for example, A. Pope, have given their lines to the common English vocabulary, e.g. Who shall decide when doctors disagree?

Some quotations are so often used that they come to be considered clichés, e.g. the arms of Morpheus, the irony of fate, to sleep the sleep of the just, swan song, etc.