5. N.N. Amosova’s classification.

N.N. Amosova 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 two types called phrasems and idioms. Phrasems are always binary, e.g. in the phraseological unit to grind one’s teeth, one of the components - to grind has a phraseologically bound meaning, the other - one’s teeth serves as the determining context, c.f. to knit one’s brows, small hours, beef tea, small talk, husband’s tea, etc.

The other type, i.e. idioms cannot be separated into determining context and components with phraseologically bound meaning. The meaning of the idiom is created by the unit as a whole though every element keeps its usual value, e.g. a mare’s nest ‘nonsense, a discovery which exists only in the imagination of a finder’. A mare ‘a female horse’ has obviously no nest. The word mare is monosemantic and so does not need any determining context. The word nest is polysemantic; besides its main meaning ‘the place made by birds for laying eggs and sheltering their young’ it may also mean by metonymy ‘a brood’, or metaphorically ‘lodging’ and ‘bed’ and even ‘haunt of robbers’, etc. None of these, however, is connected with the word mare and they do not occur together in a free phrase. Thus both words keep their usual meanings while the combination as a whole possesses a special meaning.

Phrasems and idioms are both subdivided into movable and immovable. These qualities are dependent upon their structure. A phraseme may be movable due to its variable element, e.g. The apple of (his, her, mother’s) eye ‘that which is specially precious to one’.

For such word–groups as to pay a visit, call, respects, court, (one’s) addresses (to smb) N.N. Amosova suggests the term ‘semi-fixed context’ or ‘traditionally fixed context’.

The difference between phrasemes and idioms being based in this classification on semantic relationships, the approach is no less subjective than classifying them according to motivation (as V.V. Vinogradov).

6. A.V. Koonin’s classification.

A.V. Koonin bases his classification on combination of functional, semantic and structural features. He singles out four classes according to their function in communication determined by their structural – semantic characteristics.

1) Nominative phraseological units are represented by word–groups, including the ones with one meaningful word and coordinative phrases of the type wear and tear, well and good, alive and kicking, high and dry, etc.

This class also includes word–groups with a predicative structure, such as the house that Jack build, sheep that have no shepherd, the tune the old cow died of, etc.

2) Nominative–communicative phraseological units include word–groups of the type to kill two birds with one stone – two birds are killed with one stone, that is verbal word–groups which are transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the Passive Voice, e.g. to beat somebody black and blue – to be beaten black and blue; catch somebody bending – to be caught bending, etc.

3) phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word–groups, e.g. by the Lord Harry! Sakes alive! By George! My foot! Like hell! Bless me! Go to pot! A pretty little kettle of fish! etc.

4) Communicative phraseological units are represented by proverbs and sayings.

Each of the mentioned classes is divided into sub–groups according to the type of structure of the phraseological unit. The sub–groups include further divisions into types of structural–semantic meanings according to the type of relations between the constituents and to either full or partial transference of meaning.