5.2. Methods of Phraseological Investigation

Method of semantic identification was introduced by Swiss lexicologist Charle Balli for determining the phraseological unit. He proposed to substitute a phraseological phrase by a simple word – identificator or logical equivalent. His thought was shared by V. Vinogradov but argued by A. Koonin. The latter remarked that some phraseologisms have no words-identificators, e.g.: to drink like a fish = to drink too much and, on the contrary, some free word combinations may also have words-synonyms: to take part = to participate.

The contextual method is developed by Russian scholar N. Amosova. Under the context she understands a combination of a word with other words. Further she differentiates two kinds of contexts – variable and stable. A variable context is a free combination of words that permits more or less variation. For example, the word blind can combine with a number of words. For example, in the combinations blind cat, blind horse, blind child, blind woman the adjective blind has the meaning “disabled”; in the combination blind hand – “indistinct”, in blind battle, blind escape, blind attack – “unrеasоnаble”.

A stable context is a fixed combination of words which does not permit variations or has very limited number of them. The meaning of the word which is realized in this context is one and the same, e.g.: broken tea – “sipped tea”, dog’s life – “hаrd life”, old salt / water-dog – “old seaman”, to knit brows – “to frown”. A close link between elements in a stable context transforms a word combination into a fixed / stable unit of language.

Method of surrounding. This method was developed by М. Таgіyev in Russia. It permits to differentiate two kinds of links between words in a word combination. There are both free word combinations and unities which are phraseologisms, e.g.: to come home – “to hit the target”, to show one’s teeth – “tо threaten”. They can be either free word combinations or phraseological units depending on their surrounding.

5.3. Semantic Classification of Phraseological Units

There are different combinations of words. Some of them are free, e.g., to read a book (a newspaper, a letter), others are fixed, i.e. limited in their combinability, e.g.: to read a riddle – “to solve an enigma”. The combinations of words with fixed or stable relations are called phraseological units. If a free combination of words is a syntactical unit consisting of notional and functional words in which notional words can perform the function of independent sentence members, in a phraseological unit words are not independent. They form set-phrases in which neither words nor the word order can be changed. If free word combinations are created by the speaker, phraseological units are used as ready-made forms. Besides, the whole phraseological unit has a meaning that may be quite different from the meaning of its components.

Thus, phraseological units are at least two words with stable relations and particular meaning. They can be determined according to the following criteria: - сombination of at least two words;

- fixed word order;

- semantic unity (all words are semantically bound);

- completeness of meaning;

- ability to substitute words;

- reproductivity as ready-made phrases (відтворюваність);

- historical background.

Semantic classification of phraseological units belongs to Russian lexicologist V. V. Vіnоgrаdоv and corresponds to semantic classification of Charle Balli. It is grounded on the semantic links between the components of the phraseologism. According to this classification three main groups of phraseological units are distinguished. They are:

• set phrases, or collocations;

• phraseological unities;

• idioms, or phraseological fusions.

Set phrases / collocations (стійкі сполуки слів) are based on limited variability of their components (обмежена сполучуваність) – in verbal phrases: to do business (not to make business), to make friends (not to do friends); in attributive phrases: sore throat, deep gratitude, pure soul, close friendship; in adverbial phrases: at your convenience, on no account, at full length, at one stroke; in pleonasms: free and easy, fair and square, odds and ends, stocks and stones; in phrases formed by the contrast of alternatives: heads or tails, neck or nothing, hit or miss; in phrases with archaic words: in his behoof – “in his interests” (behoof – book. “benefit, prоfit”), not a whit – “ні на йоту”, in days of yore – “long аgо” (yore – pоеt. “the ancient times”, “минувшина”), to shake off the yoke – “скинути ярмо”, to leave in the lurch – “покинути у скруті”.

Next two groups of phraseological units are based on the degree of bound meaning (ступінь вмотивованості значення).

Phraseological unities (фр. єдності) are semantically indivisableunits the whole meaning of which is motivated by the meaning of their components. In other words, the meaning of the whole phrase is not equal to the meanings of its components, but the figurative meaning is rather apparent. They are stable in form and usage but semantically divisible constructions whose components are words with free meanings, e.g.: fall ill, live on air, live in a fool’s paradise, make both ends meet, make up one’s mind, pull the strings, put a spoke in one’s wheel, slip one’s memory, stand in one’s way, take the habit.

Fixed comparative phrases are also attributed to this group. They are of two semantic types: patterns of likeness and patterns of degree.

Patterns of likeness: as busy as a bee; like herrings in a barrel; sing like a lark; sleep like a baby. There are also comparative phrases based on the antiphrasis where the 1^st component neutralizes its primary denotative meaning, and, thus, makes it opposite in general meaning: as welcome as snow in harvest, as clear as mud.

Patterns of degree: better than nothing; worse than anything; hot as fire; happy as a king; hungry as a wolf; old as hell.

Prof. N. Rаyevskа also includes proverbs and proverbial sayings (in other terminology phraseological expressions) to the class of phraseological unities. Proverbs are utterances that often have metaphoric meaning and can include elements of implicit information, e.g.: East or west, home is best; Birds of feather flock together; Let sleeping dogs lie; Let bygones be bygones. Proverbs are often elliptical in their structure, e.g.: No pains, no gains; No sweet without some sweat; All covet, all lose. Some proverbs may bear the same idea embodied in different linguistic form in different languages. Cf.: E. Call a spade a spade, Sp. Call bread bread and wine wine, Ukr. Говорити правду у вічі. Називати речі своїми іменами; Lat. In the land of the blind a one-eyed man is the king, Korean Where there are no tigers, a wild cat is very self-important.

Phraseological fusions / idioms / idiomatic phrases (фр. зрощення) are nominative or syntactic constructions whose meaning cannot be derived from the meanings of the words combined in them, e.g.: pull smb’s leg (to deceive), mіnd your p’s and q’s – “be careful”, a nice kettle of fish – “a mass”, once in a blue moon – “very rare”. Phraseological fusions represent the highest degree of blending together. The meaning of the components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the whole. Linguists call them idioms under which they understand a complete loss of the inner form. To explain the meaning of idiom is a complicated etymological problem. The meaning of idioms usually have historical background. Thus, to mіnd one’s p’s and q’s is supposed to be connected with observing rules in writing; a nice kettle of fish was used ironically by Samuel Richardson and Henry Fielding to mock at the English gentry who organized picnics on the bank of the river Tweed. They called them a kettle of fish. Maybe the fish was burnt, or someone forgot the salt, or the kettle was overturned.